Your comments are appreciated except for the fact that you decided to low ball the Indiana program. Not sure that was necessary. You may want to keep in mind that the US has few resources for very good 400 meter training, illustrated by the fact that most often Clyde Hart's workouts get posted when anyone asks for 400m help. It really would be beneficial if more coaches would provide their ideas in a setting available for all to view and analyze.
There are a couple of things that I think play an important role in 400 training.
1) the basic speed of the athlete (ie. talent level). Clyde Hart's program works well for athletes that have run very fast in high school. Not sure how well it would for an "ordinary" middle of the road high school athlete coming into college
2) Weather plays an important part as well, since any emphasis on speed training will be affected by weather conditions. When temps are in the 70's and 80's in April down South, while they are in the 30's and 40's up north, you can't do the same workouts.
3) Physical maturity also plays an important role in 400 development. Many young 400 meter runner doesn't have the physical maturity or muscular development needed for this intense event. It takes time to develop that and the need for the body to learn to run "efficiently" and rhythmically. You get this through doing lots of repetitions, weight training, racing and progressive training as the body adjusts to the workload.
4) Racing strategy also plays an important role. Running a race in lanes vs running on a relay other than the first leg has both a physical and psychological affect on performance. Lane running is difficult, as learning pace, strategy, positioning, etc again takes quite some time. Running a relay leg and "chasing" other runners is easier and more conducive to breaking through with fast times. How often to you find athletes running a second or more quicker on a relay than an open race? And this includes the difference for the down start in the open race.
5) Modern training methods seem to focus more on speed quality rather than strength quantity. It has been my observation over the past 40 some years that the philosophy of "less is better" seems to rule the training for 400 meters. I am not sure that is the best approach, especially for the young athlete just getting to 400 meters. Certainly a veteran does not have to do as much base work, since he or she already has develop a solid base of work over the years, is much more efficient in running form and has learned the rhythm of running 400 meters.
So, I would not throw the Indiana high school program completely under the bus. Yes, it is overly heavy on the distance work compared to the speed and strength phases, but keep in mind many high school athletes race twice a week and double or even triple in those meets (400, 200, relay), if allowed by league or state rules.
Finally, I do agree there are at least 2 types of 400 meter runners as suggested, the sprint-400 and the 400-800. There may even be more, but going back to when the 400 really changed (1968) Larry James was the new sprint-400 meter runner who rarely, if ever ran over 300 yds in workouts. John Smith, Wayne Collett, Steve Lewis and others also were considered more of the sprint-400 meter variety.
On the other hand Lee Evans, Martin McGrady and Ron Freeman were more power/strength runners who did a lot of longer, heavy duty training, as did Juantorena.
Freeman actually came from an 800 meter background in high school, running that event through his junior year and then broke 47 seconds as a senior at his state meet.
The modern 400 meter runners, such as Michael Johnson, Jeremy Wariner and Butch Reynolds seemed to me to be hybrids, speed and strength, not seen very much prior to their development.
It certainly would be nice if more coaches would post their own experiences and philosophies, similar to what distance coaches do.