Since he's more 400/800 than 800/1500, I think somewhere in the range of 20-30 miles per week would be appropriate, maybe skewing towards the low end. A long run of 6 miles at an easy pace once a week is probably plenty.
Since he's more 400/800 than 800/1500, I think somewhere in the range of 20-30 miles per week would be appropriate, maybe skewing towards the low end. A long run of 6 miles at an easy pace once a week is probably plenty.
Renato Canova talks about training a 400-800 guy, Marcello Fiasconaro. Fiasconaro was the first guy to run a 1:43.xx. Here is some of the training. Note that the 3 x 600 is slower than race pace and the 6 x 300 is faster than race pace:
I organised for him in Turin morning training sessions on the Golf Field in La Mandria, and March went there 5 times per week, running every day 10 km between 35' at the beginning of the period and 33' at the end of May. On the track, his program was very easy : twice per week (Tuesday and Friday) alternating this type of workouts :
a) 10x150m in 18" with 2' recovery
b) 6x300m in 36" / 36"5 with 6' recovery
c) 3x600m in 1'21" / 1'19" with 8' recovery
d) 6x150m in 16"5 with 5' recovery
e) 3x300m in 33"5 / 34"5 with 8' recovery
It's on page 10 of this thread, scroll down.
The 800 is more aerobic than anaerobic according to more recent research:
As a masters competitor, I had my best seasons over 800 where I had a 1 hour SLOW run every couple of weeks or so. Also CV 1000s were very helpful. For a 1:52 guy those would be no faster than 2:52 but probably slower. Does he have a 5k time? Add a minute to his 5k time and that's pretty close to his CV pace.
In HS I ran 50.6 but only 2:03, so way underdeveloped aerobically back then
Hard for me to believe that Fiasconaro did those morning 10k sessions on the grass that fast, but Renato was there so he knows..
I have another question. How it is possible to be coach without education how to train?
Where I come from, coaches need to study for 4 years to learn everything about athletics. Sprinting, long distance running, high jumping, shot put etc.
Here is how I would explain it:
”NOOOOO!!!!”
My reply to why the sprinter type 400/800 runner needs to run 25 min steady state runs...they don't. They certainly can but they don't have to.
I believe slow running for the sprinter type 800 runner will erode fast twitch muscle capabilities, so the "distance" type tempo/steady state and long run should be avoided. Aerobic training for the sprinter type 800 runner may be more appropriately developed through general strength circuits, weight room circuits, and intervals on the track at percentages (70%-85%) of the runner's 400 meter time. Extensive and intensive tempo intervals serve very nicely to develop the aerobic capacities of the runner in a more specific way than a 25 minutes continuous steady state run might.
Some extremely successful programs I know of do not even do "easy" running for warm ups; rather a warm up consists of dynamic/active drills, sprint drills, acceleration sprints, line hops/in place jumps, etc. progressing in intensity through out the warm up to active the fast twitch muscles as a warm up. No easy running. Nothing slower than 70% of the 400 for the sprinter type 800, so in this case 70% of 48.5 is 69.3 seconds per 400, nothing slower. One can get a great aerobic workout by doing multiple reps of 100s in 17.3 seconds or 200s in 34.6 seconds. Change up the surface like working on on dirt, turf, grass for ligament/tendon strengthening and injury prevention. Aerobic enzyme activation will take place in a more specific manner compared to sending a 400 runner to do easy runs or long runs. Running repeat 200s in 34 seconds would be a great way to develop the aerobic system while still allowing the runner to recover and prepare for a more challenging workouts. Running at that pace for 5 x 1000 would be extremely difficult if not impossible, as the OP suggested as a workout, so my recommendation would be instead limit those reps to 200-300 range for aerobic development and to serve as a recovery session.
In summary, to the original poster, I do not think that your athlete needs to run "distance" runs, long runs, or continuous steady state/tempo. Save these for the distance type 800 runner. There are many ways to develop the aerobic capabilities for the sprinter type 800 runner other than easy runs/steady state runs or whatever else they are called.
That sounds like a really good plan. Some elements are like the Easy Interval Method (off which Bram Som ran a 1:43.xx).
Because you can't build aerobic capacity by doing mostly anaerobic running. Why do you dislike the concept of an 800 runner doing some aerobic running? If seems like you are just philosophically against it. Even Alberto Juantorena, who was the best 400/800 runner in history did some aerobic running.
good thread.
When your athlete can do those workouts he should not be looking for 1:52, but for 1:48 at least. That was the point with the "impossible" of the other poster I guess.
It's not exactly success when you intervalls train like a national class athlete but run high school times in a race.
Some easy running don't take away fast muscle fibers. That is load of rubbish.
I have same speed and jumping ability no matter if I run 20mpw or 60.
I Have trained with low mileage, doing intervals ir very hard, it hurts and I can't do many. After I have run some mileage, it became much easier. I can recover 3x faster between reps.
At first coach needs to know, if he realy is 400/800 runner.
Maybe he can run mile also and can easily train aerobic endurance without losing sprinting speed.
LongTimer wrote:
I'm a sprinter/sprint coach now working with a really promising 400/800 kid. Last year, he ran a 48.5 in his first attempt at the 400. He ran 1:52 in his 6th competition over 800. His training was pretty much random.
So many 800 programs involve long runs that are many many times the duration of the actual race. In what way does a 25-minute solid-state run help the 800 meter runner that a shorter, more specific run(s) does not?
Bear in mind, I'm coming from the sprint world. Theories differ there, but I think most people would agree that running at or near race distances 2-3x a week, with recovery or technical work in between, would hit most of what you're trying to hit for a sprinter. There might be good reason to go shorter (isolating block work or top velocity form), but not much reason to go significantly longer.
Why isn't this the case for an 800 guy? What do I lose if I have my guy do 3x600 slightly faster than race pace on some "hard" days, 5x1000 slightly slower than race pace on other hard days, and then just fill in the days in between with either top speed work, or maybe some lactic tolerance stuff.
Why would fairly specific work like this be suboptimal? Would he really suffer if he didn't engage in lots of runs that are (1) substantially slower than race pace, and (2) 10x the duration of the actual race?
You develop capillary beds and Vo2Max in a way that is very unpunishing for a distance runner. Oxygen consumption is 10x more important in the 800m than the 400m, even though the two races feel similar and the paces aren’t too far removed.
HOWEVER: some 4/8 guys really struggle with running more than 6 or so miles at a reasonable tempo. Feed the cats. I have a 47/1:47 teammate who does not ever go further than 8 miles, and even that’s once in a blue moon.
When my coach gives me a relaxed 10-13 mile run I’m pretty darn happy about it. Throwing some AirPods in and enjoying a nice long run is something I’d do if I wasn’t even training for anything. If your athlete is not like that, don’t make him do it. Throwing him on the elliptical 2-3 times a week for 60 minutes and telling him to keep his heart rate between 150-160 would work just as well, maybe better, not beat up his legs, and probably be less intimidating.
Edit:
Also, if you have your athlete warm up for 2 miles, do 12x400m @3k/3200m pace with a slow lap jog between each, and then cool down for a mile or two, he has just ran 10 miles, gotten a good Vo2Max stimulus that’ll help convert that 48 to a faster 800m, and it doesn’t feel like a long run to anything but his aerobic system.
What age/ grade is the kid you are coaching?
Does he currently do any kind of aerobic running? (even 10-15 mins)
There is a lot of good information in this thread (and other linked threads)
The aerobic development is something that ideally you would work on over the autumn(fall)/winter.
There probably isn't a huge point trying to develop this too much at this stage for the upcoming track season. I certainly wouldn't advise any huge changes at this stage which is why I ask what he currently runs.
I definitely agree with the points about the work outs being very much like race efforts, there certainly is a time for this, but not every week.
The great Australian coach Percy Cerutty espoused long runs for 800m runners, during their conditioning phase. Later, they would sharpen with faster running.
You shouldn't.
I think dedicating 20%-25% of your weekly volume to doing a base/easy pace running is not justified given the physiological requirements for middle distance races(800m-3k). There are more optimal ways to develop the aerobic component needed for those events. For example doing a double threshold day of two 8k volume workouts would do more to enhance aerobic capacity and lactate production and metabolism. What does the long run do to help a 800m get faster or handle the metabolism needed for the race? More mitochondria? More caprillatrization around the heart and working muscles? You can get the same development from three 50-70 min runs per week.
You should look at Pat Henry’s training for answers.
A more interesting question would be : how long the long run should be for a 400/800 runner?
800-1500 runners can do long runs up to 90 minutes or even 120m long runs in base phase. It's doesn't hurt speed as long as you keep every week some sort of speed training (usually hill sprints in base phase).
But I guess that's too much for a 400/800 type. Probably 45min up to 1h is good.
You shouldn’t have them do long runs
theres no benefit for the 800
last you I ran 2:10 800 with not much endurance, now I have way better pbs in 5k, 2 mile, 1 mile. But guess what?? My 800 is still the same because my speed is the same
LongTimer wrote:
I'm a sprinter/sprint coach now working with a really promising 400/800 kid. Last year, he ran a 48.5 in his first attempt at the 400. He ran 1:52 in his 6th competition over 800. His training was pretty much random.
So many 800 programs involve long runs that are many many times the duration of the actual race. In what way does a 25-minute solid-state run help the 800 meter runner that a shorter, more specific run(s) does not?
Bear in mind, I'm coming from the sprint world. Theories differ there, but I think most people would agree that running at or near race distances 2-3x a week, with recovery or technical work in between, would hit most of what you're trying to hit for a sprinter. There might be good reason to go shorter (isolating block work or top velocity form), but not much reason to go significantly longer.
Why isn't this the case for an 800 guy? What do I lose if I have my guy do 3x600 slightly faster than race pace on some "hard" days, 5x1000 slightly slower than race pace on other hard days, and then just fill in the days in between with either top speed work, or maybe some lactic tolerance stuff.
Why would fairly specific work like this be suboptimal? Would he really suffer if he didn't engage in lots of runs that are (1) substantially slower than race pace, and (2) 10x the duration of the actual race?
Training for 800m without the long training runs and just a focus on the shorter stuff will often give you a similar result for a particular event that you are building up to compared to athletes who incorporate regular long runs. However from my experience and observation of 800m runners, where the real difference becomes apparent is in their ability to recover, especially in big events where they have multiple rounds like the Olympics with only a day or two between the heats, semis and finals. Also those doing more mileage will often maintain and even improve their performance over an entire track season compared to those that don’t, who will often peak and then burn out for the rest of the season comparatively quickly.