Is the famous 10x4(60) workout REALLY the ultimate predictor of 1600 ability?

Correct, it's a better predictor for the 1500m or full mile, not the 1600.

No, because slow twitchers with very good endurance will be a bit slower than what they can run for 400m and fast twitchers/those lacking endurance will be a bit faster with the workout.

Of course it's not a one size fits all, you'd be stupid to think so. However, I have yet to see a runner who can complete that workout but can't break 4:00. Its true purpose lies in a confidence booster, because it is a workout that just happens to line up really well with the combination of strength and speed necessary to break 4:00.

But what about as a predictor for high school runners who want to break 5, 6 or even 7?

what does 10x4(60) mean? I thought it was 10x400.

10x400 in 60seconds per

numberz wrote:

what does 10x4(60) mean? I thought it was 10x400.

Shortenes way of saying 10 x 400 with 60 sec rest

...what’s the rest interval..?

I wasn’t talking about doing each rep in 60s, I was talking about the 10 x 400m workout at mile pace with 60s rest.

Obviously a 4 minute miler is going to have very little bias towards speed or stamina because they will be near elite in both.

But what about a speed guy who runs a 55 400m or something who cannot even break 6 in the mile due to running no real mileage or training. Surely somebody like this would be able to complete 10 x 400m at MUCH faster than their mile pace? Even with no aerobic background, a few 85 second laps should be a jog for a sprinter, or am I wrong?

Most 55 sec boys can run at least a 5 flat.

But that shows they should be more 200/400 types.

As a youth Ron Clarke, BITD, trained for a while with Franz Stampfl and often did 10 x 440y comfortably under 60 seconds. Clarke was never under 4:00 for a mile and I'm not sure he ever got particularly close.

Now Stampfl generally had his athletes "jog" a 440y in ~2min after each rep, so maybe the physiological effects are different from a rest interval of 60 seconds' standing or walking--but I honestly don't think they'd be a whole lot different.

Clarke was on record as saying that it was easy to get revved up for a lap under 60 seconds, but hard to sustain that pace. I suspect that he ran the quarters as a semi-sprint, rather than with his true mile stride--and he had the aerobic talent to take a lap at a slow run and recover almost completely, then go right into another semi-sprint.

As with other training protocols, it's possible to "learn the workout" and become progressively better at it, without necessarily seeing better results in race times. OTOH when Bannister and his training mates were finally able to average 59sec for their ten quarters (also under Stampfl), he had a real feeling that he'd be able to break 4:00 for the mile...so, for some people, part of the workout's benefit--maybe a big part--could be the confidence it builds.

And FWIW I've noticed that other coaches say 12x400 is the criterion workout.

mcvred wrote:

10x400 in 60seconds per

I can do that, given enough rest between reps. And no way can I go sub 4. OP is right.

Discuzz wrote:

But what about a speed guy who runs a 55 400m or something who cannot even break 6 in the mile due to running no real mileage or training. Surely somebody like this would be able to complete 10 x 400m at MUCH faster than their mile pace? Even with no aerobic background, a few 85 second laps should be a jog for a sprinter, or am I wrong?

That sort of runner is going to be in trouble half way through the workout. 60s rest is the truth.

With that said, I would have a 6 minute miler run maybe 7-8 reps, not 10. No need to burn them out.

400m guys breaking 5min????? This is one of the LR assumptions that a 55 second 400m runner can break 3hours for the marathon. Most sprinters hate and fear any kind of distance, it's actually the rare 400m runner who can break 2:10 for the 800 or 5:00 for the mile.

Whatever pace you can average for ten reps is what you can do in a mile. It has no aerobic or anaerobic bias towards pure distance or pure speed types because the workout itself gets harder as it goes on. You won’t be able to average the pace for ten reps if you don’t have the aerobic strength to do it.

A 55.0 sprinter may very well cruise the first 4 reps in 75 and then die and for the last five reps those 5 minute pace laps may even end up close to 6:30 pace laps because of the aerobic drop off. The sprinter is relying on his pure anaerobic capacity and not doing the workout properly. The proper way to do this workout is go out at your honest mile pace and maintain the same pace throughout. If that sprinter was in 5:30 shape he should do each lap in 82.5s, that way he will not die half way through the workout.

Also, I am not sure why a 6 minute miler should only do 8 reps instead of 10, it won’t burn them out. Our XC girls who run in the 5:45-6:10 range have no issues doing 10 x 400 in 1:30 with 60 seconds of rest.

lease wrote:

Clarke was never under 4:00 for a mile and I'm not sure he ever got particularly close.

Not sure what his mile PB was with Stampfl, or what he got it down to after leaving Stampfl. But he get down to 5:08 for 2000m.

I thought you meant 10 x 240.