400m and 800m discrepancy

I had exact the same numbers at your age, 25 years ago.

Everyone is different, but I figured out years later I did not enough easy miles.

The speed was there, but I lacked endurance...

I actually believe we do no more than 15 miles per week at practice maybe a little more

Exact the same... wrote:

I had exact the same numbers at your age, 25 years ago.

Everyone is different, but I figured out years later I did not enough easy miles.

The speed was there, but I lacked endurance...

Forget the 8. Concentrate on the 4. A 49 for only being a sophomore indicates you're more the sprinter type and should be running 46's by graduation.

I didn't think I was a sprinter because my best 200 was a 22.3 outdoor of soph year and my 300 is only a 36.0.

Sprinter type wrote:

Forget the 8. Concentrate on the 4. A 49 for only being a sophomore indicates you're more the sprinter type and should be running 46's by graduation.

Different physiological demands. 800 much more aerobic. (and more than most think)

Quarter-Half Miler wrote:

I didn't think I was a sprinter because my best 200 was a 22.3 outdoor of soph year and my 300 is only a 36.0.

Sprinter type wrote:

Forget the 8. Concentrate on the 4. A 49 for only being a sophomore indicates you're more the sprinter type and should be running 46's by graduation.

That's still better than your 800 times no?

Focus on whatever you like. But your 400 is your best event.

Ave Winner wrote:

Focus on whatever you like. But your 400 is your best event.

I would not jump to that conclusion at all. Can't rush 800 development, as it takes some solid base work and some physical maturity to get those times down. One thing I would suggest it running 4x4 relay legs to get some good 400's under your belt and then wait until championship season for those 800 times to come down, as long as you are doing some decent workouts (and not just slow distance runs, either).

Quarter-Half Miler wrote:

I didn't think I was a sprinter because my best 200 was a 22.3 outdoor of soph year and my 300 is only a 36.0

If your 300 is that much slower than your 200, then you are a sprinter. That's why your 400 is so much better than your 800.

How can you not be a sprinter running 22.3 anyway? Do you think cross country runners are capable of anything close to 22.3???

I started off wanting to be a 200/400m guy but my coach pushed me to the 400/800 and thought my 600 was a good indicator to be a half miler. He throws me into several events ranging from the 100-1600 so I'm just confused haha. He took my 4:40 mile without training as an indicator of me being a middle distance runner and has made me do distance workouts as opposed to my sprinting workouts last year. Whether that's harming my performances this year I'm not too sure. My best 300 enroute to my 400 at 35.13. Would increasing my mileage from 15ish miles to 30 miles per week help my 400 and 800?

Ave Winner wrote:

Quarter-Half Miler wrote:

I didn't think I was a sprinter because my best 200 was a 22.3 outdoor of soph year and my 300 is only a 36.0.

That's still better than your 800 times no?

Focus on whatever you like. But your 400 is your best event.

yes they are better than the 800 time. I've looked at my times from 100-800 on the IAAF tables for years to prove to my friends that I'm better at at being a sprinter (or at least a long sprinter) than I am at the 800, which they believe to be my event. The 2nd to last tables and the recently revised tables show that my bests evens go 400, then the 200, a couple of wind aided 100s, and lastly the 800 . But since they are distance runners, they won't allow me to win the argument. The general attack on my claim is "Joe Guy can run xx.x (or even up to a full second slower) in the 400 like you and he can run x:xx in the 800 and x:xx in the mile. That's how I know you're can run x:xx in the 800.

I can't be the only one to have ever heard that.

Don't listen to these numbskulls. With a 22.3 you are going nowhere as a sprinter. You should still be trying to get that 400m time down to 48.0 (with splits of 23/25), and mileage isn't the answer for that. With that and increased quality running, aiming for 1.50 should be possible. I coach a kid (HS Senior) who ran 1.50.2 last year off 49.0 (he didn't run a 200 or 1600), and his longest run before coming to me was 20 minutes. He still doesn't run all that far - 30 to 45 minutes- but runs fast (6 minute pace). Keep some speed-endurance work (both lactate tolerance and buffering) and strength (he does stair reps - 260 stairs for the climb - and Hill reps both short and long).

This year he is tring a few 1600's (4.25 indoors with no compettion) and 200's as well.

candu reactor wrote:

Don't listen to these numbskulls. With a 22.3 you are going nowhere as a sprinter. You should still be trying to get that 400m time down to 48.0 (with splits of 23/25), and mileage isn't the answer for that. With that and increased quality running, aiming for 1.50 should be possible. I coach a kid (HS Senior) who ran 1.50.2 last year off 49.0 (he didn't run a 200 or 1600), and his longest run before coming to me was 20 minutes. He still doesn't run all that far - 30 to 45 minutes- but runs fast (6 minute pace). Keep some speed-endurance work (both lactate tolerance and buffering) and strength (he does stair reps - 260 stairs for the climb - and Hill reps both short and long).

This year he is tring a few 1600's (4.25 indoors with no compettion) and 200's as well.

You're calling us numbskulls? Yet you think 1:57 is going farther than 22.3?

22.3 is very good if you're only a sophomore. I say at the very least, high 21's by senior year and college sprint coaches will be promising to get you into the 20's in college.

I think the 800m will be a good fit for you. You have enviable speed for the event. However, the sort of endurance you need will likely not be achieved by long runs, marathon-paced runs, and other 'easy' continuous paces.

I would suggest cruise (10k pace) intervals will be excellent for your stamina. Get these into your program. Then, after a month or two, if you really hate just going for runs, do track tempos, preferably on grass. You can work out the starting paces and amount of time you can handle from the resource below, which I highly recommend you invest in. It is the best $100 you or your parents, or your coach, for that matter, will spend on your sport this year. I do not get a commission.

Remember to still work on pure speed every season, because you are already blessed with it, so 'the rich get richer'.

http://completetrackandfield.com/product/complete-program-design-400600800-runners-ron-grigg/

Lots of typos in that intro. I hope it doesn't speak as to the quality of the book.

Not at all, and I kid you not. It may seem odd that someone with my handle endorses it, but the endurance is still there, just modified for true 4/8 types.

The resource is audio, with video, bullet points, diagrams, and various other resources to complement it, like equivalency pace charts. If you get it, you can ask any question you want of him, and you will get a prompt, knowledgeable, and sensible reply. I have found it invaluable, and many aspects of it complement a traditional Lydiard approach, especially for a miler. Go through it, combining it with something like Keith Livingstone's Healthy Intelligent Traning (modern take on Lydiard), and you have an excellent package of information.

So what workouts would you guys recommend for 200m and 400m training? Most of my training involves 12-16 200s at 26-27 and 8 400s at 63-65

luv2run wrote:

Different physiological demands. 800 much more aerobic. (and more than most think)

And less than many think.

Must try and have a look from work.

My bloke might be leaning towards 400H. Not that far from 800. Sort of depends on how he he grows. Just 15, he went 51-high aged 14 and 23.1 electric for 200. And 24.6 for 200H. He could be very good if he's still got a decent growth/strength hit to come.