400m training

I know some kids who cant break 60 that would have no problem with your current workout plan. You need to drastically change what youre doing.

What's the point of the 800s?

Where's your strength work?

Where is your 200 training? Can't run a fast 400 without a fast 200.

As the other guy said, that program needs a heap of work. For starters, 150s should be off 10 mins+ recovery and around the 17 mark.

You are training perhaps like a 54/55 second runner.

Firstly the 800m reps are useless.

Try including more true speed, all out reps of 50-100m.

You also need some hard work for the 400m, fast reps off short recovery like 30-45s. There is a lot of lactic involved in the long sprint. If you were doing 3x300m with 60s rest in 40/41 then you would have the speed endurance to break 50.

Still need the all out speed, sub 23s 200m.

What is your pb? Perhaps you should adjust your targets.

Easy - Flying 60's for top end speed!

800m brit wrote:

30-45s. There is a lot of lactic involved in the long sprint. If you were doing 3x300m with 60s rest in 40/41 then you would have the speed endurance to break 50.

.

That's 800 training. I think 3 x 300 with 10-20 mins rest in mid-37 is more use.

You do want to do some training where you have to run fast and don't get full recovery. Especially if you are the strength type over the speed type. The difference between the 200 and the 400 is that speed endurance.

Admittedly, 3x300m as I suggested probably is more 800m training, perhaps fast 150s (maybe 4) with short recovery will achieve that speed endurance.

3 days off is too many. You should at least be putting in 30-40min of distance running on 2 of those days.

Working some hill workouts into your schedule would probably be a good idea as well.

Karma Police wrote:

800m brit wrote:

30-45s. There is a lot of lactic involved in the long sprint. If you were doing 3x300m with 60s rest in 40/41 then you would have the speed endurance to break 50.

.

That's 800 training. I think 3 x 300 with 10-20 mins rest in mid-37 is more use.

That is a workout that Clyde Hart would never use. Hart will use 4X300 in 40 sec with 5 minutes (intensive tempo @85%) for a 46 second college sprinter. A 37.5 300 for a 50.5 sprinter is >96% for an athlete at his peak and would result in VERY high lactate loads after the first rep: You might get away with that for a mid-D guy lacking in speed so the 300 is going to be slow for a sprinter, but you won't get away with that for a sprinter. Hart has a single 320 fast at the end of his progression, but never more than 1 rep like that (320+3X200 as I recall).

The template that I'm using (this is for a sprint club with people who are sprinters, not middle distance people trying the 400), which is very much like Hart, but with more pure speed and not as much volume early:

Mon 2-3X600 (65 sec/400 for a 50.5 sprinter, rest 15 min like Hart)

Wed 3-6 X 150 (95-100% 15 min rest, this is special endurance but not longer than 15-20 sec)

Fri 4X60m fly from 40m leadin (what Charlie Francis called a finish drill)

You will also have weights, plyos, block starts, and 1-2 days of 20 min jogs (Michael Johnson did 4 miles @ 5:30 pace at least once), depending on how many days people have to train and if you have an indoor race schedule.

Over the period of a whole season, the 600's become 450's, the 150's become 320+3X200, and the 60m flys become 150's. Ends to the middle. This is very much like Hart except we do more speed in the fall/winter.

Only somebody who doesn't know about sprinting would tell a sprinter to do 30-40 minute runs ever in a season. Any real sprinter is going to quit if you do that.

coach d I love the concept of "ends to the middle"

Lol no you shouldn't.

I spoke to Charlie on a number of occasions and there was flexibility in both S-to-L and L-to-S. I find the so called "end to the middle" to be an attempt to have the best of both worlds that ends up with neither and I think that he would say that as well. Why not work the progressions in a single direction?

As for Hart, his athletes rarely sprint. Actually until MJ got there they didn't at all and spikes are worn infrequently in training. Prior to the late-80's Hart's training system looked liked something from the 1940's or 50's when the 400m was viewed as a middle distance event along with the 800. Injuries and a lack of progress are the norms when mimicking what Hart did.

Here is how Lee Evans trained. Plenty of 800s:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102360653/Train-With-Pain-400m-Program-Stan-Dowell#scribd

Current 400 world champ also talks about running 800s and 1000s in training in bullet point #7:

http://spikes.iaaf.org/post/how-van-niekerk-went-sub-44

I agree with possible need to adjust OP's targets.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

Here is how Lee Evans trained. Plenty of 800s:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102360653/Train-With-Pain-400m-Program-Stan-Dowell#scribd

Current 400 world champ also talks about running 800s and 1000s in training in bullet point #7:

http://spikes.iaaf.org/post/how-van-niekerk-went-sub-44

I agree with possible need to adjust OP's targets.

The OP is already running 800's in training. When looking at his plan I see nothing that will get him to his goal of breaking 50 seconds. He needs to raise his intensity levels 2-3 days per week and on the other days he can do the aerobic training as recovery whether it be 800's or something shorter.

800m Brit wrote:

You do want to do some training where you have to run fast and don't get full recovery. Especially if you are the strength type over the speed type. The difference between the 200 and the 400 is that speed endurance.

Admittedly, 3x300m as I suggested probably is more 800m training, perhaps fast 150s (maybe 4) with short recovery will achieve that speed endurance.

I agree with that first line. It's just that you want to try to hit race pace.

Here are a couple of rhythm type 400m short recovery sessions:

- 4-5 x 200 with 2 mins recovery (slow jog/walk back) at come home speed, so around 26 for a 400 runner (with a rolling start)

- 7 x 100 (maybe a second set), running each section of a 400, with 30 secs jog back recovery. So you run the first 100, jog back to 50, run 50-150, jog back to 100, run 100-200, jog back to 150 etc.

Old Sprint Coach wrote:

I spoke to Charlie on a number of occasions and there was flexibility in both S-to-L and L-to-S. I find the so called "end to the middle" to be an attempt to have the best of both worlds that ends up with neither and I think that he would say that as well. Why not work the progressions in a single direction?

As for Hart, his athletes rarely sprint. Actually until MJ got there they didn't at all and spikes are worn infrequently in training. Prior to the late-80's Hart's training system looked liked something from the 1940's or 50's when the 400m was viewed as a middle distance event along with the 800. Injuries and a lack of progress are the norms when mimicking what Hart did.

And the Hart method relies on someone having good speed already. How can you not work on their speed all year round? Who has that luxury?

Apart from S-to-L and L-to-S, there is a third method - concurrent. This is probably closer to an ends to middle type, though I think of ends to middle training as better suited to 800. With concurrent training, you work lactic all year round, but in different amounts and at different intensities. You also work speed all year round, strength (gym), and tempo type work, though this disappears as you approach comps.

Of course it's high lactate - that's the point. If they struggle with that, make it 300-250-200, or 300-260-230. I just think that training at 800 intensities is of less use when you hit the final straight of a 400. In a 400 with 80 to go, you are swimming in lactate and it is intense, much more so than the gradual buildup of 800 type lactate.

I'm talking 400 runners here, not sprinters having a go at moving up to 400.

I know 800 runners who hate 30-40 minute runs. I just don't see the point for a 400 runner. They get the lactic work they need from the tempos and lactic work.

Have you thought of going like this:

3 days on, 1 off, 2 days on, 1 off.

3 days on are 1. accelerations (CNS, alactic), 2 speed endurance, 3 tempos, then the 2 days on are 1. roughly 200 training, so with flat out elements, 2 submax, maybe some 400 speed and 800 speed work.

I've been thinking leading into the season, there are 2 types of 400 work you need - there's the flat out or close to flat out 300-250-200 type work I mentioned (1st of the 2 days), and the more rhythm 400 work, like the 7x100 or 5x200 I mentioned a post or two up, done on the 2nd of the 3 days on after accelerations the day before.

The reason I mentioned concurrent before is not many people have the luxury of laying a big base, then gradually moving towards a peak for one meet. Many have long comp seasons, or have to peak for a qualifying meet then peak again 3 months later. Using a concurrent method means you are never far from being in top shape.

I've had the opportunity to observe the Hart method of training on many occasions and made the mistake of trying to mimic it with my athletes. I fully agree that speed needs to be addressed year around.

S-to-L and L-to-S are concepts that are very specific to CF and I don't think that many people understand the underlying precepts. The idea is to keep speed and specific endurance from coming into conflict for neuro-muscular resources. That would be the issue for CF with a concurrent/ends to the middle approach. Once he explained the concepts it became clearer to me what I had done wrong on many occasions with my athletes.

Just to give a little more perspective

Pr's before training started (may):

100m: 12.14

200m: 24.4

400m:53.32

Now entering september:

100m: 11.91

200m: 23.74

400m: 51.7

sub50400m wrote:

Just to give a little more perspective

Pr's before training started (may):

100m: 12.14

200m: 24.4

400m:53.32

Now entering september:

100m: 11.91

200m: 23.74

400m: 51.7

Any amount of athletic activity will get you faster. Whats holding you back is the 200m PR. You need to be at 23 flat or faster to break 50. Do more 150's and less 800's.