Odd but effective 400 workout

Bump

How old are you and what are your goals?

It's actually not for me. I'm coaching now and wondering if I should have my guys do this workout. They have come into track season relatively out of shape. I'm wondering if I should put them on this low mileage, high intensity plan, since there is not much time for higher mileage to take effect. With regard to the 400s workout, I've just never seen or heard of anyone else conducting it like that so I was just wondering if anyone else has / where my old coach got that idea?

I've never done this workout, I've never heard of anyone doing this workout & I'm no coach or anything.. but this seems like a ludicrous idea to me.

I once did this same workout, it was more of my own prescribing. Without getting all sciency, I think this sort of workout can be helpful for those needing to work on their speed, particularly when fatigued.

I found that after a couple of repeats, even with full rest, I would start to feel terrible about 100-150 m into the next 400, until the last couple where I basically felt terrible the whole time. In short, it forced me to continue to put in a maximal effort when extremely fatigued, while still working on my speed (I am more of a 5k/cross type).

As hokey as it sounds, I think this workout may have represented something of a breakthrough. I only did it once, but (4.5 years ago.. eee) I recall feeling much more economical the next week...

This is a terrible workout that anyone with any understanding of training for distance events would not do, especially for someone running more miles.

[quote]Smismard wrote:

Anyone else heard of it and what is the principle behind it? Would it work with higher mileage

How old are you, and whata are your times?

voila, or the equivalent in lithuanian.

Verzbicas did 6 x 400 in around 56 (I think), starting each when his hr fell to 120.

Must be some kind of eastern european workout.

That Verzbicas workout is completely different. 56 is nowhere near 'close to flat out' as OP is trying to do.

Terrible workout? 8X400/200 R float was Rob DeCastella's staple track workout for many years. 120+ miles per week. One of the greatest Marathoner's ever. Seemed to work fine for him.

What's the rest end up being? I've seen 400 workouts at very fast paces with pretty long recovery (several minutes). They are pretty common midway to late in the season with a lot of coaches. All that "lactate tolerance" stuff.

leafy wrote:

That Verzbicas workout is completely different. 56 is nowhere near 'close to flat out' as OP is trying to do.

well - depends on what 'close to flat out' means.

VB could run a 52, maybe? So 4 secs slower than all out? For me, getting within 4 seconds of my 400 PR is a pretty painful run - I would call that 'close to flat out' on a windy cold, practically solo workout day.

what's your 400 PR? how would 4 secs slower than it feel?

Unless I am way off VB's 400 PR. But he always said that he was an endurance athlete rather than a MD guy.

agip wrote:

leafy wrote:

That Verzbicas workout is completely different. 56 is nowhere near 'close to flat out' as OP is trying to do.

well - depends on what 'close to flat out' means.

VB could run a 52, maybe? So 4 secs slower than all out? For me, getting within 4 seconds of my 400 PR is a pretty painful run - I would call that 'close to flat out' on a windy cold, practically solo workout day.

what's your 400 PR? how would 4 secs slower than it feel?

Unless I am way off VB's 400 PR. But he always said that he was an endurance athlete rather than a MD guy.

I can run a 53.1. I'm a distance guy.

He could hit at least 50.x or 49.x.

'close to flat out' is pretty ambiguous alright. My interpretation would be 2 seconds off your 400 PR in which case it would be impossible to run this workout without dying a death.

I run 51. If I was to try 6 x 400 in 55 I think the first 2 reps would be fairly comfortable but then I would struggle to keep the pace for the last 4.

This is what happened in LV's workout. (56/56/56/57/57/57)

But I definitely wouldn't call this 'close to flat out'.

Nb Dickie wrote:

Terrible workout? 8X400/200 R float was Rob DeCastella's staple track workout for many years. 120+ miles per week. One of the greatest Marathoner's ever. Seemed to work fine for him.

I would guess Robby was not running each rep close to all out. Good luck doing more than 2 400m reps close to all out without slowing down significantly.

When I did this workout we didn't have time goals. We were just supposed to run them hard enough that the heart rate was over 170, probably close to 180. I would guess it was maybe 800 effort to start. I don't know for sure, the coach never gave us splits. By the time you got to the end of the workout, it was feeling pretty close to all out. The Verzbicas workout sounds pretty similar.

Smismard wrote:

When I was in high school my coach had us do 8 x 400 with each one close to all out. The goal was to get the heart rate up to near max. and then you could not do the next repeat until heart rate dropped below 120. (30 beats per 15 seconds.) We sometimes did 800s instead. Total mileage was only 25 to 30 per week, but that was enough to get to 16:30s 5k and 9:50s 3200. Raced and tempo'd a lot. I've never heard of any other coach prescribing this workout. Anyone else heard of it and what is the principle behind it? Would it work with higher mileage mixed in?

I was a 46 sec 400 runner.

8 X 400 is of no value to anyone.

ran 46 wrote:

Smismard wrote:

When I was in high school my coach had us do 8 x 400 with each one close to all out. The goal was to get the heart rate up to near max. and then you could not do the next repeat until heart rate dropped below 120. (30 beats per 15 seconds.) We sometimes did 800s instead. Total mileage was only 25 to 30 per week, but that was enough to get to 16:30s 5k and 9:50s 3200. Raced and tempo'd a lot. I've never heard of any other coach prescribing this workout. Anyone else heard of it and what is the principle behind it? Would it work with higher mileage mixed in?

I was a 46 sec 400 runner.

8 X 400 is of no value to anyone.

And I did it in the 70's when it was on old rubber tracks, cinders and grass.

Smismard wrote:

When I was in high school my coach had us do 8 x 400 with each one close to all out. The goal was to get the heart rate up to near max. and then you could not do the next repeat until heart rate dropped below 120. (30 beats per 15 seconds.) We sometimes did 800s instead. Total mileage was only 25 to 30 per week, but that was enough to get to 16:30s 5k and 9:50s 3200. Raced and tempo'd a lot. I've never heard of any other coach prescribing this workout. Anyone else heard of it and what is the principle behind it? Would it work with higher mileage mixed in?

The "heart rate drops to 120" thing is an old Gerschler principle. His ideas has been adopted, modified, and, updated by more coaches than you can count but few know their source:

These workouts are fine. You just have to be in pretty good shape before hitting them. Dellinger, in his The Competitive Runner's Training Book, touches on the traditional (mean pre-1980's) definitions of interval and repetition which goes back to these guys. Gordon Pirie's successes are often directly attributed to this, and, indirectly influenced Bannister's training in the 40's and 50's. So on and so forth...