Lactate Threshold Training

Excuse me if this has been addressed, I have joined this discussion late and haven’t had a chance to read it all…

" I’m not in favour of over distance for the reasons mentioned (slower pace than 400m, possible muscles fiber switch, no need to do 500m reps to obtain a high blood lactate level…)."

Does this logic not dismiss the role of all training below 400m speed including tempo runs and condititioning runs? I have believed that it was the pace of a 600m , for example, that would lead to an unfavourable fibre conversion and not just the distance of the run. i.e. what is the differing impact of a 2 x 600m sessions on an athlete at 75/ 85/ 95% ?

Hi gf-200,
Yours is a fantastic question. Shows the sort of lateral thinking that makes this CF forum a joy to explore.

I would just offer this. While I’ve declared my aversion to over-distance reps for 400m and I try to cut to the chase and avoid the slogging “training to be able to train” approach, I recognise that some tempo - call it extensive moving toward intensive, or whatever - is valuable for reasons discussed earlier on this thread (enhancing capillarisation to improve flush-and-feed processes).

Re: Uncommitted fibre adopting the characteristics of red due to slow work, I think you would have to do little but slower work - and lots of it - for quite a long time before you would run into a serious problem.

For example, in the old pyramid-style model (which I don’t like) youngsters can spend three months and often much longer just doing gruelling long-slow-distance training (in the expectation of building a superior fitness base from which they can launch a peak to great heights).

I think if you do nothing else than train slow - due to the stress recovery, or the distance of the set work - for a considerable time, then I think you run the risk of moving away from speed for a bunch of reasons, one of which includes the likely transformation of what I call the uncommitted fibre. From memory I think it’s called Type Two Red Fibre. Something like that.

So in short, I think the reason you would not see fibre-crossover as a factor in tempo work performed in a sprints program is that it is always alternated with high velocity training. The intense speed sessions predominate among the forces acting for change.

kk :slight_smile:

Thanks for the prompt reply KitKat - was hoping you’d take the bait :slight_smile:

Discussions on this topic can be very black-and-white:

“speed is good, (slow/ overdistance) endurance training is bad…”. The example of the athlete who trains for 3-6 months of the year ‘building the base’ of long-distance and intensive tempo style training is often given (old-style pyramid, as you call it).

Criticisms of sessions such as 6 x 200m, or whatever, seem to be in the context of a programe that only contains these types of sessions (4-6 sessions per week of it). But what if the same micro contained two quality speed sessions as well. What can we say of the fibre conversions then?

There is a myriad of training options and combinations that can be prescribed that will include speeds along a spectrum between fast (>95%) and slow (<74%), especially for the 400m athlete.

Everything is a trade-off. Must be.

You probably don’t get much endurance at 400m if all you work on is distances of 100m and vice versa.

[ :smiley: Here’s the inevitable contra clause though: Brit Jon Anderson once told me that he coached David Jenkins to run about 45-flat at a Euro Ch - may have won it, can’t recall - and the staple of his program that season was rep 60m. Then again, I don’t know what else he ran, how often, or what his training history involved.]

The training mix you move toward will be dictated by the event you target. Conventional wisdom suggests at 400m there is a bias toward endurance training, but there still needs to be development of extreme speed at lesser distances. The 400 is still a sprint … and then some.

But the fibre crossover thing is desirable if you move the uncommitted fibre in the direction that will help you run the event with more success. For a 100/200 runner moving out to 400, that suggests developing endurance capabilities will be a significant aspect of the new training.

As I said, :confused: maybe an exercise physiologist can shed light on the issue. But in the absence of guidance, I’ll stick with a concurrent model of training and largely avoid the complications.

Under that model, there is a constant changing of velocities every week of every cycle and acceleration work is present within 17 days of the start of the GPP1.
kk :slight_smile:

if i may, i think it would help if we see Special End and the negative effects that we try to avoid, in terms of duration rather than distance; distances between 300-500(-600)m can have completely different effects/purposes in the training of athletes of varying abilities and duration might serve better

in case of alternating between low/high and never being far away from speed, the fibre conversion issue is not big, if exists at all, as you state; but others -mechanics, pace maintenance, psychology- i think are important for everyone and the duration should be kept to the minimum period where the above aspects do not deteriorate

not sure if i am right with this distinction and if it helps, comments?

if i am correct here, physiology supports (a lot) the endurance part for 400m training/racing, but

  1. how easy is this to be measured (via MAOD, a method which has its limitations and mainly used for middle distance running), and
  2. this might be true -in order to help you in training, for example, with repeated sprints, as it is supported, with the contribution of your aerobic system getting greater as session progresses- but the most important, i suppose, is how you incorporate the two speed ends to have optimal results; and a “concurrent” approach obviously is one such incorporation…

This is from an article that appeared in Athletics Weekly in 1976 regarding Jenkins’ training in 1975 when he came to the US and won the then AAU Championships, and, as I remember it ranked #1 in the world over 400m according to T+FN. Also set a then UK 400m record.

Non-Competitive Season
Mon- Rest
Tue- 45min. steady run and weights (4x6x175 (lbs?) cleans, push-ups, pull-ups, + situps
Wed- Bounding, 20x50m incline, 5x100m striding uphill
Thu- Same as Tue, but w/weights lighter + faster
Fri- 30min fartlek
Sat- 8x600m in 1:50 w/200m walk recov.
Sun- 8x300m in 39.0 w/300m walk recov.

Competitive Season
Mon- Weights as above
Tue- 5x75m, or 2x120m
Wed- Fartlek or 10x100m + weights
Thu- 2x3x200m
Fri- Rest or jog
Sat- 3x300min in am. 2x4x100 + light weightlifting + swim in pm

It went on to say that Jenkins takes 1.5 to 2 hours to train daily and that he disliked long reps and steady runs alone, but liked all other track work.

He periodized his season as follows:
Cross-country + strength work (Oct-Dec)
Transition work (Dec-Mar)
Track work (Mar-July)
Competition (July)

I don’t know where the weeklys would fit into this annual plan.

I’m not sure if Jenkins was still with Jon Anderson at this point, as heard the guy (Jenkins) was not an easy athlete to work with. He supposedly had difficulty managing race day nerves and over-analized everything. I was stold that he tried to break the 400 into 10m segments, but this might be B.S. I don’t know the circumstances, but he certainly was off-form at Montreal (7th).

As with any article such as this, I think that it need to be taken with a massive grain of salt.

Hi AC,

8x600 … and he still couldn’t finish his races. Interesting to see other athlete’s programs. I like Jon, very good thinker and motivator. Thanks for posting David’s program for that year.

Maybe that was year-1 or whatever of a cycle of progressive programs and he got into high volume 60s around 1978 or maybe 1980 for Mocba?

I just think the 400m demands the full package from an athlete: short speed, long speed (out to beyond 300m) and then there is a different, intensive-tempo kind of training which seems to be needed for the last 50m-to-80m of the race.

[On a personal note I find it so frustrating when I listen politely to people telling me their champion ran 11.8sec for the last 100m of a 400m - but they neglect to reveal the first 300m was in 35sec.

And when I might meekly suggest it would be good to train for the finish off a sub-33sec 300m, I get advised by the supercoach du jour that running 12sec or under for the last 100 of a 400 is still fantastic preparation for a low-44sec 400m later in the season “when it counts.”

So we count the seasons as they drift by, waiting still for that 44sec predicted so emphatically in the spring.]

kk :rolleyes:

I hope the issue of this discussion won’t be the believe there’s one single way to train for 400m! Looking at all-time female list, the use of overdistance is very controversial: East Germans never ran 400m or more at training (i mean lactic training, not aerobie), while USSR did it for similar results. But USSR 400m runners were good at 800m, while GDR nearly all came from short sprints. Czechoslovakian used a combined method with great success and using overdistance, beeing able to run under 22.50 and 2min for 200/800. Pérec used somehow a long to short approach with overdistance, don’t know how Freeman trained, nor Tonique Williams-Darling btw. That’s why 400m is so much thrilling: so many ways to train.

Quite the opposite. Thanks to the fantastic contributions of yourself and KK, the old adage “there is more than one way to skin a cat” has been made all the more apparrent on this thread.

I have been away for quite a while - and missed all these interesting stuff! Thank you very much - especially kitkat, pierrejean, chris, etc - for the knowledge shared … I am sure I’m not the only member to benefit from the discussions.

After a year of many problems (2004), my athlete - a former World Junior Champion - is “on track” for a sub 45". After reading the discussion on the Forum, I am SO enthusiastic … there is no two ways about it, the sub 45" WILL come in 2005! Thanks for motivating even the coaches on the Forum!

I will keep you updated.

I’ve had a private message asking about the role of weight training in the 400m preparation I advocate.

So here are some thoughts:

I always considered weight lifting (or training) as a supplement not a substitute for effort in the running program.

If the running suffered, the weights were usually reduced in volume and sometimes also lowered in intensity.

I always considered quality strength was developed in the gym, while strength endurance was developed on the hills and track.

So I never advocated more than 6 reps, never more than 6 sets and most of the lifting was in the 85-95 per cent of 1rm.

Lifting was done three sessions a week during the prep phases and pre-season and at various phases during the competition period.

The lifts were pretty basic:
Those without any spinal “issues” would start the routine with power-cleans, then go to the bench-press and then to squats (back), thighs to parallel.

These were the main lifts.

However the 44.3 guy I worked with had a mal-formed lumbar vertebra(?), L3 I think, and was told by our chiropractor not to clean or squat.

So he did leg-press and a lot of work on the Keiser pneumatic machines for rapid leg-extension and hamstring curls.

He also did bench-press, but could lift only a single on about 225 lbs 11 days before setting his 400m PB. He got much stronger much later in his career, but never raced as fast.

We did a few sets of boxing at the end of every weights session and after the squats, we did a few vertical jumps (maybe 3 x 10) with no load, just to excite the cns a bit and try to push for some fast contraction.

Boxing consisted of somethig like 12 x 30sec on, 30sec rest. The routine was usually six sets of straight jabs, then six sets of uppercuts wearing mits and hitting a pad held by me or a training partner.

We added in high volume, low speed sit-ups in sets of 20.

We did every session some straight-leg raises where the heel of the straightened leg was propped onto a small brick or block or step and the only other bodypart contacting the floor was the shoulder-blades and back of head and neck.

In this exercise the free leg was bent and raised to force the pelvis to “engage” thereby approximating a sprint posture (only horizontal). We did 3x10 reps, raising the bum from the floor and holding for about two or three seconds each time before lowering to the floor and relaxing momentarily.
I’m sure this was one of Charlie’s exercises.

Combined with “stiff-leg dolly” drills, the two exercises involved using the hamstrings in “long” positions (rather than strengthening and shortening, as in the hammy curl).

I’ve never had a serious hamstring injury since starting to use these two exercises in 1987. More important, neither has any athlete :stuck_out_tongue: I’ve coached in that time.

kk :slight_smile:

Thanks KK for the info and insights :slight_smile:

Hi athlete 400, sorry I took so long to post. Been a bit busy this week.

I probably would add that I think some kind of supplementary strength program is vital for a sprinter, but it does not necessarily have to be weight lifting. I advocate weights though, primarily because it is the most time-and-energy efficient form of strength training.

Then again, I know Allan Wells never did much if anything in the way of lifting weights…but who has the time to do 1000 pushups or 1000 situps - he did what he called “chinnies” - a day? You’d be worried about over-use inflammation.

And one other thing which has always been important in terms of building “structural strength and stability” and in regeneration:

Once a week, usually Tuesday morning, I ask the athletes to take a 1hr class with a gymnastics coach.

A young woman I’m working with for 800m at the moment can now do :eek: 10 x single-leg deep squats continuous on either leg (bum slowly to heel, slowly back to full vertical extension). One leg is held fully extended out in front.

We have a pro footballer working out with us on this day and he has a best (half) squat of 220kg, but struggles to do a single rep down and up on one leg.

It’s interesting really because footballers (except when they’re tackling for the most part) and runners are virtually always working off one leg at a time when they compete.

This has obviously also help in avoiding injuries.

kk :slight_smile:

Great posts as always kit-kat! I´m interested to hear more of your thoughts regarding weights…
What´s your opinion in doing weights on the intensive days, speed, SE, Charlies ways in other words vs alternate track day 1, weights day 2, tempo day 3, track…like the Brits seems to do it.
Is the 48h recovery essential or alternative.

This is a great thread by the way, good work from all “posters”.

i would take this as more CNS stress, especially if weights are of high intensity, even if it’s not running; besides, in this way it seems that some training will be missed rather unecessarily…

thoughts?

In which way? Which version are you against? It is unclear, Niko…

just a thought, but when you have a week like
sprint+weights+tempo and all this x2 (6 sessions)
aren’t you “missing” a session of each? one for sprints, one for weights and one for tempo?
the preference to the above scheme might depend on other aspects (e.g., time, background, etc); i am just referring to a “normal” programme though, as often mentioned here (i.e., track/weights + tempo x3)…

also, after an intensive session on the track, would weights be done optimally the following day? personal opinion, but i’ve tried it and didn’t like it! i prefer having blocks/days within a week concetrating on rather “one” aspect of the training, rather than spreading them (e.g., sprints/weights on the same day vs. sprints + weights over 2 days)

comments? in what cases would a more spread scheme be more appropriate?

thanks!

Yes, the ultimate for recovery, would of course be CF´s track+weightsx3 and tempo x3.
But not everyone have that access and I think that´s why some are forced to alternate track/weights, then it´s the Brits that seem to go hard almost everyday in the week, and many of them I asume are pros that does track for a living, but they still choose that way.
For thoose who can´t live on our sport or due to access of facilitys and so on, it´s either that, or dropping many seassions a week…and then there is a dilemma, drop track or weights seassions…and you don´t wanna do either altough you know it probably is not ultimate for the recovery…still some persons done great results with very “wrong” trainingways…