* dont know all that much,thats my opinion, just want to hear it. thoughts:
* dont know all that much,thats my opinion, just want to hear it. thoughts:
It's a body weight dependent event.
Meaning that you have to be at ideal bodyweight to run fast times in correlation to your height.
So 6'5 tall and 190 would be ok.
6'0 and 190 would be pushing it.
Ideal weight for heights under 6'0 is roughly 130-179 for guys. Just estimating here. Not exacts. But pretty close.
sure 400m can be run with a lot of aerobic training and little sprinting...
but 5sec slower than with a lot of sprint training.
matt_london_413 wrote:
It's a body weight dependent event.
Meaning that you have to be at ideal bodyweight to run fast times in correlation to your height.
So 6'5 tall and 190 would be ok.
6'0 and 190 would be pushing it.
Ideal weight for heights under 6'0 is roughly 130-179 for guys. Just estimating here. Not exacts. But pretty close.
Not true.
Three 6'1" guys, all capable of 43s:
Michael Johnson (heavy) - 175 lbs - 23.1 BMI
van Niekerk (light/intermediate) - 159 lbs - 21.0 BMI
Wariner (light) - 155 lbs - 20.4 BMI
So you have an ideal range of ~20.0 - 23.0 BMI. This is a very large range, which essentially means weight doesn't matter much and other factors are important.
Sure, Wariner wouldn't work with 175 lbs and Johnson wouldn't work with 155 lbs - the important thing is to be at the individual perfect weight, but taking van Niekerk's BMI and saying: "every 400m runner should aim to be at exactly 21.0 BMI!" just doesn't work.
In female elite 400m athletes, the difference is even more substantial. ranging from ~18.5-23.0 BMI.
The range also exists in 100m/200m sprinters - Bolt was 24.5 BMI and he is certainly heavier than someone like LeMaitre who is 20.5 BMI.
But the discussion about weight has nothing to do with OPs original claim, of different training methods arriving both at the same goal.
Both.
But you'll be faster with a lot of sprint.
Bolt can barely run a 2:07 800, yet he has better 400m time than a lot of 1:45 800m runners.
My firsthand experience in dropping from the 800m to the 400m is that you need a lot of sprint training and your endurance training will/must suffer. There is a huge difference between 400m and 800m training. It's probably the biggest difference between any two events that are adjacent to each other in distance
When I watched a video of Charles Allie beating me in the 400m a few years ago, I counted his steps. His cadence was 240. My cadence was only 205. (There were other differences as well.) I worked for an entire year to improve my cadence and the next year my cadence was 207. I was faster. The following year, I was faster still, running about 2 seconds faster at age 69 than I was able to run at age 67.
You can't just will your legs to run at a faster cadence. You won't be able to hold the faster cadence for more than a few seconds. It has to be trained, both the muscles and the central nervous system. You can't get that level of training doing only a little sprint work.
That's only one difference, but it's all I have time to explain. I have to meet friends for a workout.
Starno wrote:
Both.
But you'll be faster with a lot of sprint.
Bolt can barely run a 2:07 800, yet he has better 400m time than a lot of 1:45 800m runners.
The comparison doesn't make much sense - when did Bolt train for the 800m, or run the mileage necessary to build his aerobic system? All he did in his life was anaerobic, anaerobic, anaerobic, CP, CP, CP, and lifting super heavy weights.
Put him on a 800m program for a few years and he would be substantially faster in the 800m. 2:07 for just training for 100m/200m randomly running an 800m is quite good if you ask me.
You also don't understand how fast these sprinters are even untrained. A 43s 400m guy can run well below 50s without any training.
Impala31 wrote:
sure 400m can be run with a lot of aerobic training and little sprinting...
but 5sec slower than with a lot of sprint training.
No way. There are distance runners who can run 48-50s 400m without any special sprint training. Saying they could run 43-45s with lots of sprint training is an insult to any real sprinter.
The sprinters can run 48-49s 400m untrained, and then train to get down to 43-44s. A lot of that improvement comes from aerobic endurance (this doesn't mean 10 mile long runs or mile repeats, just stuff that's a good amount slower than all-out, for example 200s at 75% etc).
obviously when talking about elites (only elite distance runner can runner below 50' sec without sprint training) it is not 5sec but more like 2-3". (also elite 5000m runner does work on top speed a bit)
But for average guy training for 10k, he can improve more than 2-3" in the 400 by focusing on sprinting.
Are there teenage 800m/1500m/1600m/one mile runners with ability to sprint 49.xx to 54.xx 400 metres on middle distance training? Yes. That does not mean middle distance training is optimal for 400m athletes. Are there examples of elite 400m & 400m hurdle athletes who participated in high school XC? Yes. Are there a very small number of 400m & 400m hurdle athletes who participated in college XC? Yes. When 400m & 400m hurdle athletes participate in college XC, usually two reasons: 1) XC team cannot get seven decent distance runners to run XC; 2) T&F coach is attempting to review a 400m & 400m hurdle athlete's 800 metre potential. To maximize 400m potential, more sprint training than long repeats and/or mileage. I know Steve Ovett & Peter Snell were 47ish 400m guys training as middle distance runners. They would have been faster 400m runners and most likely faster 800m runners if they would have trained differently. Both men had 1500m & one mile goals, so it worked out well for them training as they trained.
i am more naturally a 400 guy but i ran cross country in HS and took it seriously.
we were contenders for winning states in XC every year, and i was 5th man, so my coach was not willing to let me sprint train during the season.
even while training with the distance guys, i had the best 400 time on the team with a paltry 53, so i ran it in all of the dual meets.
after senior year of XC was done, i was finally allowed to to develop my speed, and i dropped down to 51 on half of my previous mileage. my 800m time improved as well, but not by as much.
before - 53/2:01
after - 51/2:00
uremom wrote:
i am more naturally a 400 guy but i ran cross country in HS and took it seriously.
we were contenders for winning states in XC every year, and i was 5th man, so my coach was not willing to let me sprint train during the season.
even while training with the distance guys, i had the best 400 time on the team with a paltry 53, so i ran it in all of the dual meets.
after senior year of XC was done, i was finally allowed to to develop my speed, and i dropped down to 51 on half of my previous mileage. my 800m time improved as well, but not by as much.
before - 53/2:01
after - 51/2:00
So your coach forbade you to sprint while competing the 400 for track? WTF.
PaseusReal wrote:
* dont know all that much,thats my opinion, just want to hear it. thoughts:
You can run both ways. But 400m at the world level is a sprint race, different from maybe a HS setting where middie kids with enough speed endurance can beat dedicated quartmilers. So for the 400m, it depends on the age group.
I think your question fits better (I'm assumming you're talking world level) to discuss say the 600m.
When did Bolt ever race the 400 or 800 m?
He raced it when he was a junior and had a much different physique than when he was breaking the 100m record.
waxonist wrote:
PaseusReal wrote:
* dont know all that much,thats my opinion, just want to hear it. thoughts:
You can run both ways. But 400m at the world level is a sprint race, different from maybe a HS setting where middie kids with enough speed endurance can beat dedicated quartmilers. So for the 400m, it depends on the age group.
I think your question fits better (I'm assumming you're talking world level) to discuss say the 600m.
That's a good point, there is a very large difference in usage of energy systems if it's an event lasting 43s vs an event lasting around 60s. The latter has significantly more aerobic contribution, so if someone does a lot of aerobic training and gets really strong over the mile and 2-mile he might beat a dedicated 400m specialist who can only run in the low-mid 50s. But he certainly will never beat a true sprinter who is done with the whole thing in less than 45, maybe 46 secs.
There are lots of rather heavily built 190-200+ pounds decathletes who run 46-48s 400m after a long and strenous day and could probably go a second faster when rested.
(There are also some rather tall and muscular 400/800 guys like Juantorena or the Puertorican who crazily stormed ahead in Doha)
Kev2 wrote:
When did Bolt ever race the 400 or 800 m?
He started out as a 200/400 meter sprinter as opposed to a 100/200 sprinter.
https://youtu.be/DdvKcXciQ0gI've wondered this for awhile, actually.
I was always an 800 and above runner, but I would run the 400 every so often for fun as a 2nd event at a meet, or on a relay. When I was a freshman, I ran 56s in the 400, and throughout HS I never ran a repetition faster than 800M pace or shorter than 200M--ever. I never did short sprints, squats, anything. my time just from the endurance training dropped to 50.8 by the end of my HS career, so i have to think there is a big endurance component. while i certainly matured over time, i never grew in HS -- I was 5'11 going in and 5'11 coming out -- and i weighed the same.
I definitely think aerobic training benefits the 400. In particular, the strength needed to finish and lift the last 100 meters. For example, I had run 50.0 as a junior with an average XC season at best and returning from a bout with mono. But after a solid and focused senior XC season (#1 man on team, 5th overall at State with a 15:57 5K) I was able to consistently run 49 point in the open 400 and PR'd at 48.8. I regularly split 48's and was 4th in the open 400 at State (top 5 XC/top 5 400 - that alone should prove the correlation). I also saw my 800 time greatly improve as I anchored the 4x800 in 1:52.4. This was done with high intensity, low volume training (during track season) but definitely not incorporating anything I would call pure sprint training.
However, another post on here said it would be insulting to say to sprint guys that middle distance/distance guys could easily drop a few more seconds with sprint training. I tend to agree. I am pretty confident that sprint specific training might have allowed me to run 47 point, but no faster. I would have undoubtedly had less ability in the 800 (main event) or opportunity to acquit myself decently in XC had I focused more on sprinting. The mid-d/distance guy needs to see the 400 as a complement to their main events, not the main event.