Good point KK.
Probably why USA’s Merritt and Neville were the only finalists to run faster with each run.
Definitely need to look at simulating three rounds somewhere in the program if one was to prepare for this level.
With a round less logic suggests that an “aerobic base” becomes less important -especially for those athletes with a strong training background- and the speed reserve notion even more decisive perhaps. As for the rest day before the final a brake up in rhythm may be another factor to consider -I suppose DOMS wouldn’t be a problem in, say, KitKat’s example, had proper-pace racing was there beforehand. Thoughts?
Interesting thoughts - which I have thought about when in Beijing! The Olympics was surely THE HIGHLIGHT in my coaching career.
For London 2012 I want to prepare two possible athletes in the 400 and/or 4 x 400 relays - one DEFINITELY speed-orientated, the other one - a very young athlete, less speed but he is excellent in long, continuous runs.
The first athlete - Not so good in a once-off race, but VERY good in rounds. Kitkat’s programme and therefore a S-L approach, suit him.
My questions - (1) With THREE in stead of FOUR rounds - kitkat and/or others - would it be necessary to make changes to the said programme? At this stage I am sure the programme makes provision for the three hard rounds. Or another option - Maybe following the transition period twice (for 4 weeks) in stead of only once?
(2) In a previous championships, I found that my athlete was not so ‘sharp’ in the final. (The same could be said of some of the 400m athletes in Beijing’s final.) QUOTE - ‘As for the rest day before the final a brake up in rhythm may be another factor to consider’ … could this be the problem? Something to consider - in stead of a COMPLETE rest day, maybe a warm up, race plan training on the ‘rest day’?
The second athlete -
He wants to focus on over-distance … I therefore considered a mix of the L-S and S-L approach. Over-distance on the one side, but to focus and try to improve on his lack of speed as well. My question - (3) Would it be better to rather convince him to stay with distances not longer than 300m … to be able to handle the faster rounds?
QUOTE -
‘With a round less logic suggests that an “aerobic base” becomes less important’
Question (4) - Does this mean that aerobic training, e.g. the 20’ - 30’ jog is no longer necessary, not even in the GPP?
Based on this - another ‘high profile coach’ BELIEVES that the AEROBIC capacity of an athlete will determine his/her ‘readiness’ to handle rounds … even in the 100/200!! Question (5) Do you agree?
(I tried NOT to argue with him, but HOW is it possible for an athlete to handle 3 FAST rounds in the 400m or 4 FASTER rounds in the 100/200 with AEROBIC training!!!)
Thanks!
Well, of course, that’s the question I was asking to begin with here. And maybe I answered it to some extent, but suggesting that for athletes with not many training years behind them, perhaps an aerobic-threshold emphasis should remain - especially if they come to the 400m from an 800m background, where tolerance of high-end aerobic threshhold conditions comes comparatively easily.
I don’t see any problem with extending or duplicating the Trabnsition phase work, or indeed building on that in smaller micro-cycles of training where most threads of performance are touched upon more frequently.
The other thought is, again, to attempt to simulate something of the tournament experience by building into the training programme a three-day test block during which, perhaps the athletes time-trials or races a 350m or a split run (eg 300+150) on three consecutive days, preceeded and followed by sufficient rest. That could be incorporated every three or four months. Even once may prove invaluable, but obviously not too close to the domestic selection trials.
I would be surprised - no, actually, I wouldn’t be - if coaches gave their athlete literally a day off any form of activity before a major final. I would always recommend a light warm-up/warm-down to at least help flush and feed the muscles again. But, as you say, losing rhythm can be a big issue for some (most). That’s why I’ve always had “my” athletes take a day off two days before a meet, with the penultimate day occupied with race modelling “in the rhythm of the race”.
Maybe he can work Concurrently and Inversely: S2L on Day 1, followed by L2S on the backup day. Of course there will be plenty of days when the Long session will require him to come in off a rest day, so he will have to do that on Day 1 because L2S can also be shattering if done with quality.
I’ll take a stab at your last question KK.
Aerobic capacity helps flush out waste products after events and helps make the warm-up easier and therefore less fatiguing. An example would be the semi to final of the 100m- usually around 90min or so. An excellent aerobic capacity allows you the re- warm-up with very little effort relative to those with limited aerobic capacity. We see this time and again with top athletes requiring much less warm-up activity between rounds than lesser athletes.
As for DOMS. the later it comes on- the worse it is. (deeper fatigue delays the training response and any resultant DOMS along with it.)
For sure, I agree.
One area I’m a bit hazy on is the extent and nature of the aerobic work as it pertains to the 400m athlete.
You prefer to keep tempo slower than 70 per cent of max and I’ve seen your people on tempo days and they finish looking as if they came out a shower !
I’ve probably erred on the side of trying to work more of a concurrent theme and the aerobic effort has been, I think, of a higher order in that the4se sessions mostly incorporate some level of 400m race specifity (for example: 6x200m with 1min 40sec jog recoveries, with reps in 24sec or faster [always faster by pre-season] for a male.
Sessions like 3x3x300m continuous for the most part and 3x4x150 also mostly continuous are also faster than a lot of coaches would advise for building purely a general aerobic base.
Just because the tempo RATE is not high does not mean it’s easy during the session itself. As you say, you can sweat profoundly- but you will feel pretty well recovered 20min or so after the session with no residual effect. On the other hand, you can do a speed sesion and feel great at the end- like you could do more- and wake up the next day hardly able to move.
Agree again. Thanks for taking an interest in this thread CF.
Few questions(influenced by sprintcoach)Keep in mind, i’m talking 200/400 or 400 only.
-
Lets say athlete A is full of natural speed, and athlete B is showing less obvious speed. How do do you decide whether or not athlete B is slower due to a lack of speed development, or is simply always going to be slower than athlete A? When considering the direction of training as far as L-S, S-L, speed based, or aerobic based, etc,
-
How much does DOMS have to affect you in training before you decide to go against one of the training simulations that kitkat proposed? I’m far removed from my days of sprinting, but I remember the days where I couldn’t move the next morning, and I couldn’t imagine having to run a simliar workout that caused this to begin with lol.
-
How would all of this factor in, when the day comes that the 200/400 double is annually possible?
-
Sample Workout - 2x300/100
The athlete is a high 45, low 46 runner. Would 37-38 followed by a 12sec 100m be considered “enough”? 12min rest in between sets, with 1min between the 300 & 100. Not only that, how would the workout be altered in order to replicate the feeling of the last 100m, or is this enough?
- What changes as far as workout choices when it comes to someone who will most likely participate in a 3-4 round format vs someone who is probably going to be running on the circuit? Meaning have any of you ever changed(should you)the training programme/schedule for an athlete based on the expectations.
I’ve always wondered what the difference in the % of tempo would make as far as the progression of the overall season?
Do you start at a fixed percentage, and stay there through out the year only adjusting the volume, vice versa or a combination of both? How would this affect the end result as far as the recent topic of discussion.
For example, would athlete A benefit more than athlete B if athlete had a fix percentage all season, and only the volume varied? Or would athlete B benefit more if the percentage of tempo varied, as well as the volume. To me it seems like an obvious answer, but I can’t help but assume that the there’s something more there.
For me the added intensity that the progression of the athlete would inevitably produce, seems to be taken care of by the lowered volume(my current approach)
So instead of increasing/decreasing volume and/or intensity, would the solution then simply be to variy the rest between reps. And would this be more beneficial to the athlete preparing for rounds, or the athlete who is simply trying to get faster?
That’s why I felt that a day off the day before a final may cause problems in rhythm. However, how would you tackle such a scenario within 4 days in the Games, if Day 1 was Round 1, Day 2 the Semi, Day 3 the Off day and Day 4 the Final? What would Day 3 include and would it be any different to your past practices? Thanks!
Good questions. Some of the answers depend on athlete background and level. Beginners need to start with lower overall volumes and move up over a longer GPP while top athletes should be able to jump in pretty much at the volume they left off at.
The percentage intensity is tied to corrent level/capacity throughout the phases, so, in the fall, the tempo speed will be capped lower than in the late SPP.
The stress from the tempo session is the combination of how close to the speed cap, how short the breaks, and the length of the reps (a big circuit, with 200s mixed in, will be tougher than straight sets of 100s)
The ability to vary all three elements provides the flexibility to suit all occasions and physical states related to different recovery states from various speed session demands.
The advancement of tempo sessions is greater early on and becomes progressively less throughout the season but must advance at least marginally till mid to late in the SPP and then held in place or the training effect will be gradually lost.
The tempo in the taper phase is purely flushing in effect and is not representative of the rest of the season’s work!
Perhaps that is why your athletes have performed well at major meets with multiple rounds.
I wonder if CF’s strategy is more suited to a 1 off race situation. 
No, I think CF proved with his athletes that they handled the rounds better than almost anyone. Ben was the kind of that squad, but to set world records in round 4 in Rome and again in round 4 in Seoul proves beyond doubt that Charlie’s program not only permits but encourages high performance through tournament scenarios.
Keep in mind also that he had also tremendous results with Canadian 400m runners with 49sec females during the 1980s.
I suspect it just proves again that there are numerous ways of climbing the mountain and getting to the summit.
But what is required is a fairly clear idea and justification (even if only to yourself as coach) of the process and the logic behind the annual plan and all that goes into it. Experience and intelligence tends to iron out the potential pit falls which will occur with every athlete and every preparation.
I meant specifically in the 400m.
Were those female 49’s in multiple round meets?
Yes, I think they ran fast at the 84 Olympics or around that period. Charlie mentioned some of his 400m results to me not that long ago and he was almost dismissive of his own successes at 400m. But 49sec today would put a female in line for major titles. I suppose he was still thinking back to the days when someone like Sabine Busch who was “only” a low 49 runner (on the flat) was moved to the 400 Hurdles so that she would have a chance of winning something (for the DDR).
Funny you should think of Sabina Busch. Major babe!
As the Soviet ambassador said to the US president (Peter Sellers) in Dr Strangelove (my favourite film) of the Russian President: “Nikolai is a man of the people. But he is also a man, if you know what I mean.”
I think fondly also of Sabine 
Regarding the progression of tempo, if plan is to progress both tempo and speed, and the athlete is having difficulty recovering, where do you look to reduce workloads, the tempo or the speed work? Does this depend on where you are in GPP vs. SPP?
Once a certain level of fitness is in place, is it still beneficial to continue to move tempo forward? How much really is necessary, especially if further progression starts to affect high intensity work?
Why would the training effect be lost if you simply maintained the volumes and speeds that you had progressed to?
Thanks.
Merritt emerging as money machine
By Al Myatt
Former East Carolina track coach Bill Carson had a lengthy conversation with LaShawn Merritt on Wednesday following the former Pirate star’s double-gold medal performance in the Beijing Olympics last week.
[b]Carson said Merritt watched Jamaican Usain Bolt’s lifting technique in the second 100 meters of the 200 and used a similar stride to pull away from 2004 gold medalist Jeremy Wariner in the 400 last Thursday in China.
It was a return to a technique that Carson had taught Merritt in Greenville. Merritt spent the day before the 400 studying tape of his competitors before leaving them behind at the Bird’s Nest.[/b]
Carson speculated that a race may develop between Bolt and Merritt in the 400.
“That could be a million-dollar race,” Carson said. “I think Usain may be the only one capable of challenging LaShawn in the 400 in the next few years. Usain may try to get all three world records in the 100, 200 and 400.”
[b]Carson said Merritt’s contract with Nike runs out this year. Merritt signed a $2 million deal with the sports equipment giant during his freshman year at ECU in 2004-05.
“It’s going to cost Nike a pretty penny,” Carson said. “They won’t get him for $2 million again.”[/b]
Carson said Merritt has what it takes to be an ambassador in track and field.
“I said all he needed to do was get that medal and it would open up for him,” said Carson, who will be inducted into the ECU Athletics Hall of Fame this fall. "He’s very articulate and self-assured, but he’s humble.
“He’s not a guy who’s going to embarrass anybody in any way.”
Carson said he had intended to watch the replay of Merritt’s race on Thursday night without knowing the outcome but inadvertently heard the results on ESPN Radio as he returned to his home in Cullowhee from visiting a friend in Kingsport, TN.
“That was OK,” Carson said. “It allowed me to watch and be thoroughly analytical.”
Carson got phone calls for interviews into Friday morning.
“It was kind of like one last hurrah for me,” Carson said.
Merritt kept his former coach’s attention in the ensuing 4x400 relay as well.
“They asked LaShawn which leg he wanted to run and he wanted to run the leadoff,” Carson said. “He said let me go out and let’s see if they can catch us. LaShawn ran 44-flat in lane seven, which is tougher to do than lane four, five or six.”
The United States team won the relay race easily to give Merritt his second gold of the games.