When a race comes down to the last 400 and someone runs a 56, what dictates that?
Is it good speed endurance or solid top end speed leaving them with a lot in the tank?
When a race comes down to the last 400 and someone runs a 56, what dictates that?
Is it good speed endurance or solid top end speed leaving them with a lot in the tank?
Speed endurance, from what I've read Alberto cova fresh 400m was no different from his last lap in a 10000m race. Canova explained it well in some of the older threads.
The ability to run a fast open 400m is not the same as being able to run a fast last 400m of a distance race.
Obviously you can't close in 56 if you can't run 56.
Top end speed is how fast you can run 10m with a running start.
Most people will run between 1.0 and 1.2 top end. That difference won't have much influence on who will close in 56 (1.4s per 10m). It can't hurt, though.
Fitness, more than anything, dictates how fast someone closes.
If a 13:30 guy races a 14:00 guy and the race is going at 14:10 pace, that 13:30 guy is going to be able to close faster even if the other guy can smoke him in an open 400.
If that same race is going at 15:30 pace, you may get a different result. But the 13:30 guy is still going to have more reserves to reach for.
I really appreciate the response, you explained things pretty thoroughly for me.
I think I may have drawn the discussion away from what was my original question.
When considering your overall efficiency in a race (mid-distance more specifically) what is more important?
For the 800m for example, what would be more important, the ability to run a 22 second 200 or the ability to run a 46 second 400. Given that the 400 is usually a positive split race, I was wondering why it would even matter whether or not you can run a fast one if the pace in your specific race wouldn’t like come near those levels.
If someone’s goal was to run a sub 3:40 1500, would you demand that they develop their overall leg speed or chase after a specific goal like a sub 54 400m first.
If your plan is run a fast 1500, then you train for the 1500.
I would encourage young runners to train for the sprints when they start running and then move up in different years.
But if your goal is to run a fast 1500 in the next year, don't do any 100 or 400 type workouts at all.
You can try to close workouts fast or do your drills and strides efficiently.
You are trying way too hard. Train for the 800 to be an 800 runner. Of course you need a good 400 for a good 800. 54 speed doesn’t get you to 1:48. And yes a good 400 means more than a good 200. A good 600 means even more than a good 400. A good 700 would mean even more.
All speed endurance for 800 and up. I had a teammate who couldn't crack 54 for 400 but ran 1:54 and 4:11 in high school, and once ran a 9:18 3200 closing in 56. Not to mention the guy on here who broke 4:00 with a 54-second 400 PR. You need to be able to run the time of course, but once you have that, it's all about extending how long you can hold that pace. Improving your top end speed can help a bit, especially for the 800, but it shouldn't be the main focus of your training at all (can usually be accomplished just with strides and an occasional speed workout).
The Lydiard formula was to firstly establish your basic speed, and he believed the 200m was the best measure for doing this. Taking that assessment he would work out what would be your best distance with conditioning training and speed endurance. So a 22 sec man like Snell he saw was suited to the 800-mile, while a 25 sec man like Halberg was better as a miler-3miler. The goal of training was not to find a way to increase your basic speed - that was pretty much set - but to improve your ability to sustain effort close to your basic speed. Whether middle or long distance, the key was the same, to build up stamina and strength. Speed work on the track was the last part of the process. So do your miles, then your hills, and sharpen up when it's time to head to the track.
This only works for distance oriented guys otherwise nobody would be running the 200 or 400. We have 100 guys on our Hs team and none can run 22 so all of them need to move up to the mile and 2 mile I guess. We won’t score any points at conference this year in the sprints but oh well.
Speeed Endurance wrote:
When a race comes down to the last 400 and someone runs a 56, what dictates that?
Is it good speed endurance or solid top end speed leaving them with a lot in the tank?
The answer is both. In running, it is almost never "one or the other".
Distance runner test wrote:
This only works for distance oriented guys otherwise nobody would be running the 200 or 400. We have 100 guys on our Hs team and none can run 22 so all of them need to move up to the mile and 2 mile I guess. We won’t score any points at conference this year in the sprints but oh well.
22s for 200m is for a potentially world class 800-middle distance runner; not a requirement for a high school athlete.
oigfwur;oiwj wrote:
Speeed Endurance wrote:
When a race comes down to the last 400 and someone runs a 56, what dictates that?
Is it good speed endurance or solid top end speed leaving them with a lot in the tank?
The answer is both. In running, it is almost never "one or the other".
That answer needs qualifying; a 56s last lap off a fast pace requires stamina most of all; off a slow pace it will suit the runner with more high end speed who might have been out of contention off a faster earlier pace. In distance running, a good basic speed is important but aerobic fitness - speed endurance - more so. Mo Farah.
Don't forget that intangible... having a killer instinct. Some guys are just willing to dig deeper into the well at the end of a race. How bad are you willing to hurt?
Practice kicking 200 meters at the end of a hard workout. In cross country I would have my team run a workout towards the end of the season where they'd run 800's with the first 400 at race pace and then kick the last 400. It also helps if you don't go out suicidal at the beginning of a race.