Me coach has me doing distance runs and 400m repeats at 80 sec. He tells me that 400m is the first distance event. Is this true?
Me coach has me doing distance runs and 400m repeats at 80 sec. He tells me that 400m is the first distance event. Is this true?
400m repeats are a great workout. A distance event? I often become tired before the race is over, so I would say yes it is.
We were talking about how to pace a 400 the other day at practice, so maybe it is. They do seem to be finding that the mid-distance events are more and more aerobic than originally thought.
The 400 is not a distance event. The only pacing you need is to go out hard the first 200 and hold on for dear life the last 200.
On the other hand, I ran my PR quarter (not very fast, true) 12 days after a marathon and four days after a seven-mile race. (A great sprint finish of ~300y in each, however.)
It's not a distance race, but I train primarily for the 800 and still manage to run fast in the 400. Faster than most of our sprinters do, anyway. Maybe if they did some fast 300s once in a while they'd knock their 400 times down a bit.
It's definitely an endurance event. I had a teammate who went from 54s to 49s in a season because he quit football and ran cross country during the fall.
He's have a long run of 8 miles, one day of 150s, one day of 600s and a day of block starts. The rest was recovery running for a total of 30-40mi/wk.
there definitely is pacing in the 400. the decent sprinters on my team accel the first 50 to 100, cruise/maintain the straight, and then hammer.
yes indeed, that is pacing.
Read and learn. That's the training that Clyde Hart uses on his athletes, such as Michael Johnson in the past and Jermey Wariner right now. Basically, he's the best 400m coach ever.
1.20's for 400?, i used to run 16x68 sec 400's for marathon training, 1 minute recovery. Depends what you're running them for how many and above all RECOVERY times.
you could run something like 2x(4x400) off 1 minute recovery if you're a high school girl looking to run about
5.09 for the mile.If you're looking at using them on 800
training the you'd beworking on a 2.24/2.26 basis.
All rep training has a purpose but without knowing your
aerobic threshold speed (approx that of your 2.8k/3k speed)
it's just work in the wind. It's all about percentages of this base speed, you just can't run reps on hazard you have to base them on something.
See also:
It is a SPRINT. Michael Johnson's world record of 43.18, that is 10.8 per 100 meters. You msut spread the energy throughout the race, but it is surely a sprint.
Endurance sprinting is different than distance speed.
this would be fun, let us have Asafa Powell Race Bekele in the 400. The winner will tell us if the 400 is a sprint or a distance race.
Powell would win by at least a couple seconds
Depends on how slow one runs the 400?
But, no I would not consider a distance event.
My wife's grandpa was a well known HS track coach and he still needles me about events longer than 1 lap being bad.
mobile9 wrote:
It's definitely an endurance event. I had a teammate who went from 54s to 49s in a season because he quit football and ran cross country during the fall.
He's have a long run of 8 miles, one day of 150s, one day of 600s and a day of block starts. The rest was recovery running for a total of 30-40mi/wk.
What criteria are you using to define a distance event?
I use energy system demands. I will admit some of this is arbitrary, but it is the best way I can think of. If less than 50% of the energy comes from non-oxidative processes, it is not an endurance event.
Now, every event has some aspect of endurance in it aside from a vertical jump.
I would be leery of saying his training in the fall was solely from dropping football. Maybe indirectly in that he lost some of the weight be carried from being a football player.
The overall energy usage is less than 50% aerobic, however that those crucial last few meters are largely aerobically powered. At the most basic level, everything longer than six seconds has an endurance component, and the 400 has a very important endurance component. It's obvious when they go through the last turn, the big bear jumps on their backs and they rig up because they've put too much crap in their legs and they can't produce enough ATP aerobically to keep them going.
Whaaattt........... wrote:
It is a SPRINT. Michael Johnson's world record of 43.18, that is 10.8 per 100 meters. You msut spread the energy throughout the race, but it is surely a sprint.
Endurance sprinting is different than distance speed.
The word sprint means to run as fast as you can. If Johnson sprinted his 400, he would have run sub 40, as he can sprint faster than 20 second 200s. The 400 isn't really a sprint or a distance race. You don't really pace as you would for a true distance race, but you also don't just take off at 100% like you would for a sprint. I see no reason that we can't just say that it's neither a sprint or distance race and leave it at that.
It is a sprint. I think it is even ridiculous that we discuss this. If you could run the last part of a 100 meter as fast as the first, the world record would be under
9 seconds. EVERYBODY slows down in EVERY distance, so your argument makes no sense.
mobile9 wrote:
The overall energy usage is less than 50% aerobic, however that those crucial last few meters are largely aerobically powered. At the most basic level, everything longer than six seconds has an endurance component, and the 400 has a very important endurance component. It's obvious when they go through the last turn, the big bear jumps on their backs and they rig up because they've put too much crap in their legs and they can't produce enough ATP aerobically to keep them going.
Luv2run is correct and you are more than a little misinformed. Your alactic system (CP-ATP system) tops out at 7 seconds of max effort, BUT the glyolytic system (lactate producing) becomes the primary producer of energy between 7 seconds and where the system tops out at 40 seconds. These are NOT aerobic processes, and the total energy component for a 400 (typically 40%) does NOT make it an enducance event. The "bear" is due to the fact that it is NOT an aerobic event, not because it is one. The 400 for people running well over 50 seconds is much more aerobic than it is for those runnning much under 50 (remember that the glycolytic system tops out at 40), but you still have to run a 400 pretty slow to make it an aerobic event.
There is nothing wrong with a 400 sprinter doing 400 intervals for conditioning. As I recall, Kratchkova and some of the other Eastern European women ran 10X400 in general prep. John Smith, who has coached Quincy Watts as well as Maurice Greene, has had 400 runners doing 10X600 while pure sprinters start with 5X300. But this is general prep (base training). It is NOT sprint training. 400's in 80 for a 55 second 400 runner would be good for general prep, but a coach that calls this "speed" training doesn't know what he's talking about.
Also, every event longer the 60-100 has the best time being run by holding back some at the start. The fastest 200 is not run completely all out, nor is the fastest 400. This does not make a 200 distance running! The energy composition and running out of blocks bake 400 and shorter sprint events.