What is the purpose of 12x400?

I thought there would be a simple answer to the query of the original poster.

So, here it is:

It depends on how you do it.

IF its really hard for you to complete the workout or you feel pretty drained after, then it will function like some V02 Max workout.

IF its comfortably hard - that is, you aren't overextending yourself to complete the workout and feel more energized than enervated upon completion, then you will induce benefits similar to goal pace work. This give the body experience at near race pace, yet doesn't induce the trauma of a full-on race. I think the legendary workouts of Zatopek were more akin to this. Some thought he hammered them, but Ernst Van Aaken and others pointed out he was really just doing pace work. He could get close to or at his 10K race pace without running a full 10K race (which would be RACING and not TRAINING).

He did 400's for biomechanical/neuromuscular stimulus

Runningart2004 wrote:

it has no purpose wrote:

The rests are way too long for a 5k.

Not really. Do 12x400 at 5k pace. Start with 90s rest so the workout is easily achievable but still get a training effect. Progressively drop the rest as the weeks go by:

week 1: 90s rest

week 2: 80s rest

week 3: 70s rest

week 4: 60s rest

week 5: 50s rest

week 6: 40s rest

week 7: 30s rest

week 8: key 5k race

I think most runners don't understand progression and how one workout effects the others. Too many runners think in a vacuum only thinking of how 'hard' a workout is. Well folks, a workout need not be 'hard' to be effective.

Alan

Goal 5K pace or current 5K pace?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Further explanation...

Will a marathon runner do workouts like 12x400? Yes. Will a middle distance to 10k runner do workouts like 12x400? Yes. Which runner will most likely do MORE workouts like 12x400? The middle distance to 10k guy. Which runner will most likely do longer runs and longer sustained harder runs? Both. Which will do more of them? Likely the marathon runner.

Training is never either/or....it's both. What changes is the frequency and duration of various types of workouts.

Alan

Alan, my dear, this is one of the first things on which I have ever wholeheartedly agreed with you.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I think most runners don't understand progression and how one workout effects the others. Too many runners think in a vacuum only thinking of how 'hard' a workout is. Well folks, a workout need not be 'hard' to be effective.

Alan

!!!!! we agree again on the very same page! i eat my words.

Renato's take:

Personally, I don't use more workouts like 10 x 400 in 60.0 recovery 1 min for a specialist of 1500m (that I use instead normally with runners of 5000m). In my personal experience, I remember that was able running 10 x 200m in 27.0 (with the last in 24.9) recovering 1 min, and at that time my personal best in 800m was 1:59.8 ! And Giorgio Gandini, coach of Francesco Panetta, was able running in 1957 in training 30 x 400 in 64 rec. 60m jogging in 40.0, with PB of 3:47 / 14:42 / 31:34 (the Italian National Record for Women is of my athlete Maura Viceconte, 31:05.54, that has 4:26 in 1500m) !

So, clearly, is not this type of work that can produce the best performance. You become specialized in recovering very quickly, but during the race this is not possible. So, is better to try to increase the Threshold and the Speed, going for workouts of Lactic Endurance only few times, at high intensity.

not the dumbest thing i've ever heard for 5k XC training, but definitely in the top 10.

does your coach think you're milers?

.

Thank you... This workout is intended to teach young runners how to run PACE. It is somewhat of an "old school" workout... my coach in high school would build from 8x400 to 16x400 during our 8 week summer program

overyourhead wrote:

not the dumbest thing i've ever heard for 5k XC training, but definitely in the top 10.

does your coach think you're milers?

My Nike Cross Nationals-qualifying team does that workout all the time. And who have you coached?

It's the kind of workout I watched our high school coach do when he couldn't think of anything else to do..

It kept the guys within his sight and he didn't have to take some time to think of any real effective workout on an individual basis.

The classic x 400 workout is not just about the VO2 gain, speed, etc. It is really about mental and physical toughness. There is just something about doing 1/4s (if they are done right and done hard) that makes many of us dread (but at the same time look forward) to those types of workouts. Simple: You do it, and then again and again and again. And it hurts more and more and you can not think you can do another but you do..again and again.

And in this day and age of thinking if something is more complex it is better, the classic x 400 workout is refreshingly simple. Occam's razor: The simplest solution is usually the right solution.

mnostly wrote:

He did 400's for biomechanical/neuromuscular stimulus

Please explain.

I'm not 100% sure of the purpose of the workout either, but once a year through high school and college my coach had the 400m sprinters do exactly that: 12x400 at a fast pace with a 4 min. rest between intervals. Each athlete had a specific goal pace prescribed by the coach but mine personally was to avg. sub-60 pace over the whole workout, which I couldn't ever QUITE do! Needless to say, several people would always throw up during the annual workout and we'd ALL be train wrecks for a few days afterwards, but in the end I think it really did increase our anaerobic capacity and it quite certainly made us mentally tougher. By the way, the workout was called P.T.A. Day, for "Pain, Torture and Agony"... it seemed a fitting name!!

I remember this workout. The chicks did it while we did 20 x 400 starting every 2 mins (in other words, 70s for 400m gave you 50s recovery). Don't be a freakin' wuss.

12 x 400m is a good workout. I agree, don't overthink it. 3 miles of fast running, a good amount for an interval session. You can vary it some if you want to get fancy. Run the first 100m and last 100m of each really fast to get some max heartrate work in. Run the first 3 and last 3 reps really fast for some good strength work. Run em all a little slow if you feel burnt that day. Whatever. Just do it. Your body doesn't overthink and it will adjust.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Sometimes you don't question why something works...it just does.

12x400 you run before you can run 16x400 which you run before you can even attempt 20x400. So 12x400 is a stepping stone toward greater things.

Depending on the speed and rest this could be a completely anaerobic workout (long rests, very fast...say mile pace or a tick faster), it could be highly aerobic and very 'dense' (short rests, <30s, controlled pace...say 10k pace) it could also be simple pace awareness (at or close to 5k pace for a 5k runner and equal time rest)

Alan

Above is a much better answer than your first one.

That sounded like the one a poor coach gives when asked to explain an intended track session to a runner.

...don't take the Daniels book to bed with you..it's an amateurs hand guide to get injured "fast".

Too much science,...not enough practical knowledge....just my humble opinion.

You can pick a few workouts out of the running formula but that's about it.

b.bullet wrote:

...don't take the Daniels book to bed with you..it's an amateurs hand guide to get injured "fast".

Too much science,...not enough practical knowledge....just my humble opinion.

You can pick a few workouts out of the running formula but that's about it.

Can you elaborate on your first statement a bit? Some specific reasons you say that? I'm not challenging you, just looking to learn a bit from others more experienced. Thanks.

It's not a bad workout inherently. It depends mostly on where you are in your training.

If you're high schoolers doing it at a 6 minute per mile pace, then 90 seconds of rest means an even 1:1 work to rest ratio. That won't get you fully rested, nor will it keep you very tired. If I were focusing on speed (repetitions for Daniels folks) and neuromuscular work, then I'd probably take more rest and focus on keeping really good form while moving very fast. If I were focusing on oxygen uptake and aerobic capacity, then I'd reduce the rest to less than 90 seconds to keep the runners a little tired through each.

So, it depends on where you are in the season and what kind of shape you're in. I'd normally think of going to one extreme or the other so as to maximize the desired effect of the workout, but a compromise between the two seems pretty good for a mid-season workout.

The question is whether the effort was appropriate to the rest for getting the desired effect.