My 10k time has imporved but 400m speed still same . Please help

Elite 10000m men (sub-28) do have large differences in their 400m speed, 48.xx to 58.xx.

most of these people who think the have these ultra slow 400s have not run an all out 400 in a setting that matters. they don't know what they can run it in. I will never believe most of these garbage 400 times that good distance runners give.

if you haven't raced in an important 1600 relay, or something of that sort, you have no clue what you can run. It's an event where adrenaline matters, and being appropriately rested to have some pop matters.

there are zero sub 28 runners who are 58 second 400 runners. And I will never believe that 57 seconds is Salazar's best possible effort.

Ernest wrote:

Exactly... there is now tight correlation between 400m top speed and 10K top speed.

When I was running 10K in 39:xx minutes, my top 400 speed was 56s.

When I was running 10K in 34:xx minutes, my 400 was only 57 (slower).

Take 20 women/guys running, say 37 minutes for 10K, and you see 400m speeds all over the place... easily 10-15 second variation within that population.

Trumpkin wrote:

When I ran 43:10 in the 10k, my 400 PR was 63.

When I ran 32:10, my 400 PR was 62.

OP wants to lower his (or her) 10K time to 32 minutes (which translates to roughly 77 seconds per 400m). He's not going to get there if he can't run a sub 70 second lap. While you point out that there is a weak correlation between 10k and 0.4K times. I would agree, except for fast 10k runners (low 30s) - all of them will have the ability to crank out 400s faster than 70 seconds. It's just common sense.

The counter examples above are for individuals who are fast 400 runners (relatively) who happened to be slow 10k runners - not the same.

Speed work on a flat track is critical - at least one day out of 5 (note, hills are not a good substitute for track intervals).

OP doesn’t clearly state their goal event or goal time. Asked a possibly general question about whether speed work is needed for a 10k between 30 and 33 min - and later that they’d like a sub 60 400. OP started with their 400 stated at 60-62 but that it is 1-3 seconds faster with the right shoe. Then revised that to 70-72 If we assume that’s accurate, his/her 400 range is 67 to 71 with no improvement.

Trumpkin wrote:

When I ran 43:10 in the 10k, my 400 PR was 63.

When I ran 32:10, my 400 PR was 62.

That’s because when you ran 43:10 you had shi$ for endurance

W.A.Y.S. wrote:

Elite 10000m men (sub-28) do have large differences in their 400m speed, 48.xx to 58.xx.

Nonsense. No sub 28 10k runner runs only 58 for 400m. Sub 28 is sub 1:07 per lap. You can’t run 400m in 58, and run 10k 25 laps in 1:07 per lap. Not even if your name is Kipchoge. That’s running 10k at 86% of your 400m time. All those elites whom you see running sub 28 minutes and even sub 30 are very fast as well. Sub 28 guys run close to 50 400m and maybe even sub 50

You are an idiot. wrote:

Ggggg wrote:

The only way to gain speed is by lifting heavy (relative to your body weight) and do some plots as well

So says the 400 pound gym rat who can't run.

You are one of those guys who say that runners shouldn’t lift or that lifting makes you slower. Speed comes nowhere but from the power of your legs relatively to your body weight- simple as that. You wanna be faster? Gain power in your legs relative to your body weight. How to gain power? Lift heavy and do some ploys to train the muscles to execute that power fast. All those elite slim long distance runners you see have very powerful lower body compare to their body weight. That’s why they are fast and can run 50 seconds for 400m

I am so glad I learned how to sprint before I started logging mileage. I am so happy that I played baseball and Am. football for years before I became a runner. I am so happy I was a T&F athlete before I was a XC runner. I am so happy I did not have to ask others,"Can I break five minutes for one mile with a 70 second 440 yard personal best?" I have suggested learning how to sprint on here before logging mileage. Posters threw Lydiard and their favorite coach who sells books at Barnes & Noble in my face. I have seen high school S&D coaches make sure all swimmers are able to swim 50 yard splash and dash well before being considered for varsity in any other swimming event. Runners will learn one day: learn how to sprint 200m with proper sprint form, then move up in distance.

Some people don't need to do this, but some people absolutely do! If sprinting is something you are absolutely deficient in, it can be improved drastically, and will eventually lead to gains in your distance program.

After 10 years of running, I got bored of distance this spring, and decided to train like a 400/800 runner for a couple months. I did very low mileage, maybe 10 to 15 per week. But my reps from 200 up to 800 were all way faster than ive ever been able to do. I ran my best 800/1600/3200 time trials since i was a high school kid. and matched my 5k times.

After a couple months, i went back to more traditional 5k training, and ran my best 5k ever.

Speed is very important. We can't all be fast. But we can all be faster. for some people, it needs to have it's own focus once in awhile.

Ggggg wrote:

You are an idiot. wrote:

So says the 400 pound gym rat who can't run.

You are one of those guys who say that runners shouldn’t lift or that lifting makes you slower. Speed comes nowhere but from the power of your legs relatively to your body weight- simple as that. You wanna be faster? Gain power in your legs relative to your body weight. How to gain power? Lift heavy and do some ploys to train the muscles to execute that power fast. All those elite slim long distance runners you see have very powerful lower body compare to their body weight. That’s why they are fast and can run 50 seconds for 400m

I doubt if doing heavy lifting to bulk up slow-twitch muscles is going to improve 400 speed significantly and for sure its going to hinder distance running. A lot of coaches don't prescribe lower body weight training at all and if they do, it's easy reps.

Peter/Sebastian Coe and many other top coaches/athletes recommend lower-leg weight training for 800/1500 and up. But unless you're mining the last 1%, most distance-running coaches and athletes avoid lower body work because: (1) it can heighten risk of injury (e.g. exertional strain) (2) it can throw off running form, e.g. create muscular imbalance (3) muscle mass gain not efficiently contributing to fast running is dead weight (4) time spent on weights is time not spent running - for many of us, our running benefits more adding another 6-10 mpw than using that same training time on weights Weight training for Sprints, including 400m, is a different story...

This is true for runners who already have speed. Most long distance elite runners don’t do heavy lifting because they already have speed. They are very powerful in their lower body, compare to their body weight. Most amateur runners don’t have speed, and will benefit significantly and improve their speed from heavy lifting. Check out Lonah Chemtai’s weight training. Her husband and coach, Dan salpeter, describe here weight training here in detail in one of the threads. She does twice a week (or even three times) heavy lifting in the gym for her lower body. And heavy lifting doesn’t necessarily makes you bulky and heavier.

Quarter squats of 485 pound of a guy that weights150 pounds. This is specifically to gain legs power and explosiveness for speed. Not all distance runners do it, but those who wish to further improve their speed- that’s what they do

If you really think your 400 time is holding you back, why don't you work on it?

Once a week do some hill reps with fresh legs

Once a week do some 200s with fresh legs

Do more strides after runs

My 400 time was around 60. Which like the one guy said is probably BS. I never really had the desire to race one faster. 10k's were in the 29:30-32 minute range with that 400 time.

I always felt the more miles I put in the harder it was to run a fast 400. Actually, I always felt I would lose explosiveness, top end speed when I would push mileage. Probably a flaw in my training.

Pappy wrote:

If you really think your 400 time is holding you back, why don't you work on it?

Once a week do some hill reps with fresh legs

Once a week do some 200s with fresh legs

Do more strides after runs

My 400 time was around 60. Which like the one guy said is probably BS. I never really had the desire to race one faster. 10k's were in the 29:30-32 minute range with that 400 time.

I always felt the more miles I put in the harder it was to run a fast 400. Actually, I always felt I would lose explosiveness, top end speed when I would push mileage. Probably a flaw in my training.

He can do all the 200’s and hill reps and strides in the world- he wouldn’t make any significant improvement if that’s all he does.

Explosiveness does not improve only by making strides or hill reps or 200m- these are just the icing of the cake. The basis of speed is power-explosiveness- this is achieved by making your legs more powerful (especially the gluts and hamstrings) and that is achieved by lifting heavy. I’m tired of let’s runners ignorance in this aspect.

I was actually trying to help the OP. Doing hills, bounding, springing, working on cadence up, working on form going up, doing strides down, will give him excellent results. He was talking about doing 10k's. Hills will give him all the power and increase his speed.

Although weight training is good. It really does not provide as much functional value. Sure it can add strength even helps with injury prevention but it's not very functional without the running. Heavy lifting will increase T values which is probably the biggest benefit. The added T will help him recover faster.

I get tired of people on here too. Why do some feel the need to re-frame responses to fit their agendas? Talk about lifting as if it is the end all be all. The OP was talking about running faster. They never once mentioned a twerking contest.

Ggggg wrote:

W.A.Y.S. wrote:

Elite 10000m men (sub-28) do have large differences in their 400m speed, 48.xx to 58.xx.

Nonsense. No sub 28 10k runner runs only 58 for 400m. Sub 28 is sub 1:07 per lap. You can’t run 400m in 58, and run 10k 25 laps in 1:07 per lap. Not even if your name is Kipchoge. That’s running 10k at 86% of your 400m time. All those elites whom you see running sub 28 minutes and even sub 30 are very fast as well. Sub 28 guys run close to 50 400m and maybe even sub 50

At the other end of the spectrum, the 48/28:00 guy is likely to be better at 1500 than 10000.

wassup with these stupid long responses... here’s a long response

Start out with once a week 3X60m hill (nice and medium, not too steep) almost all out with good form, really engage those glutes IMPORTANT: 3+ min break between each to not accumulate much lactate. Do this aaaaalll the time every weeeeeek during base training

Build up to X5-6 x60m

After that add x2 80-120 hill sprints once a week along with ur short sprints

Once in a while do the sprints on flat ground

Focus on that form

Make sure to take 3+ min breaaaaaks between sprints pls pls pls

But the only way to increase speed is to generate more power from each step. When sprinting, your cadence shouldn't be slow, but it shouldn't be ridiculously fast either. You should be focusing on generating power to propel yourself forward further without over striding. This requires strength. The best way to improve strength is..... oh wow it's LIFTING!